Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31438967›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2019

A comparison of nurses' and physicians' perception of cancer treatment burden based on reported adverse events.

Shing M Lee, Jieling Miao, Ruby Wu, Joseph M Unger, Ken Cheung, Dawn L Hershman

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shing M LeeDepartment of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W.168th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10032, USA. sml2114@columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8413-6869
Jieling MiaoSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ruby WuDepartment of Medicine, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Joseph M UngerSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ken CheungDepartment of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W.168th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Dawn L HershmanDepartment of Medicine, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Columbia University · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

SWOG NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189974 · NCI · THE HOPE FOUNDATION · PI CHARLES D. BLANKE, DAWN HERSHMAN · 2014 to 2026
$80.6M
American Cancer Society MRSG-13-146-01-CPHPSNCI NIH HHS 1UG1CA189974-01NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer treatments are associated with a multitude of adverse events (AEs). While both nurses and physicians are involved in patient care delivery and AE assessment, very few studies have examined the differences between nurses' and physicians' reporting and perception of AEs. An approach was recently proposed to assess treatment burden based on reported AEs from the physician's perspective. In this paper, we use this approach to evaluate nurses' perception of burden, and compare nurses' and physicians' assessment of the overall and relative burden of AEs.

methodsAE records for 334 cancer patients from a randomized clinical trial conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network were evaluated by 14 nurses at Columbia University Medical Center. Two nurses were randomly selected to assign a burden score from 0 to 10 based on their impression of the global burden of the captured AEs. These nurses did not interact directly with the patients. Scores were compared to previously obtained physicians scores using paired T-test and Kappa statistic. Severity scores for individual AEs were obtained using mixed-effects models with nurses assessments, and were qualitatively compared to physicians'.

resultsGiven the same AEs, nurses' and physicians' perception of the burden of AEs differed. While nurses generally perceived the overall burden of AEs to be only slightly worse compared to physicians (mean average VAS score of 5.44 versus 5.14), there was poor agreement in the perception of AEs that were in mild to severe range. The percent agreement for a moderate or worse AE was 64% with a Kappa of 0.34. Nurses also assigned higher severity scores to symptomatic AEs compared to physicians (p < 0.05), such as gastrointestinal (4.77 versus 4.14), hemorrhage (5.07 versus 4.14), and pain (5.17 versus 4.14).

conclusionsThese differences in the perception of burden of AEs can lead to different treatment decisions and symptom management strategies. Thus, having provider consistency, training, or a collaborative approach in follow-up care between nurses and physicians is important to ensure continuity in care delivery. Moreover, estimating overall burden from both physicians' and nurses' perspective, and comparing them may be useful for deciding when collaborations are warranted.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCost of IllnessQuality of LifeAntineoplastic AgentsFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsNursing Staff, HospitalPhysiciansAntineoplastic AgentsAdverse event burden assessmentPerception of burdenProvider consistency

Identifiers

PMID31438967
PMCPMC6704545
OpenAlexW2969712353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.