Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31848315›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2020

Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Breast Surgical Oncology: Advancing Toward Value-Based Care.

Mirelle Lagendijk, Elizabeth Mittendorf, Tari A King, Christopher Gibbons, Andrea Pusic, Laura S Dominici

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Mirelle LagendijkDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Elizabeth MittendorfDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tari A KingDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Christopher GibbonsDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Andrea PusicPatient-Reported Outcomes, Value & Experience (PROVE) Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Laura S DominiciDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Value in health care is defined as the health outcome achieved per unit of cost. For health care systems, improving value means achieving better outcomes at lower costs. Improving outcomes, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), as well as more established metrics such as mortality and complication rates, ensures high-quality care. This is particularly true in breast cancer surgery, where survival and recurrence rates are comparable across different surgical approaches. Outcomes reflecting survivorship quality may therefore better inform decision making regarding surgical approaches. PROs can be assessed using validated instruments known as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). They are obtained directly from patients reflecting their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Ongoing initiatives strive to define PROMs that accurately reflect HRQOL and demonstrate value, with the goal of establishing benchmarks for quality of care. Clinicians caring for patients with breast cancer are well positioned to be involved in defining meaningful measures of value-based breast cancer care. This article reviews value-based breast cancer care in the context of locoregional therapy, with attention paid to the work done by the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures in which a "standard set" of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer for international use is defined. In addition, an overview is provided of relevant PROMs and previously reported scores. Recommendations and future challenges for implementation of routine collection of PROs are also discussed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Opportunity exists to act as early adopters of the routine collection of longitudinal patient-reported outcome data for breast cancer, allowing transition of current care to value-based cancer care.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSurgical OncologyHumansMastectomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBreast cancer surgeryPatient-reported outcome measuresQuality of lifeValue-based cancer care

Identifiers

PMID31848315
PMCPMC7216450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.