ArticleCancer medicine2020
Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of the Scottish inflammatory prognostic score with treatment-related adverse events and prognosis in esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The application of Global Trigger Tool in monitoring antineoplastic adverse drug events: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Improving infectious adverse event reporting for children and adolescents enrolled in clinical trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2022Article
- Chronic-pharma: New Platform for Chronic Patients Pharmacotherapy Optimization.Journal of medical systems · 2022Article
- A Risk-Factor Model for Antineoplastic Drug-Induced Serious Adverse Events in Cancer Inpatients: A Retrospective Study Based on the Global Trigger Tool and Machine Learning.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Evolution of Hematology Clinical Trial Adverse Event Reporting to Improve Care Delivery.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2021Review
- Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.Health science reports · 2020Article
- Association between cancer-specific adverse event triggers and mortality: A validation study.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs there are few validated tools to identify treatment-related adverse events across cancer care settings, we sought to develop oncology-specific "triggers" to flag potential adverse events among cancer patients using claims data.
methods322 887 adult patients undergoing an initial course of cancer-directed therapy for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer from 2008 to 2014 were drawn from a large commercial claims database. We defined 16 oncology-specific triggers using diagnosis and procedure codes. To distinguish treatment-related complications from comorbidities, we required a logical and temporal relationship between a treatment and the associated trigger. We tabulated the prevalence of triggers by cancer type and metastatic status during 1-year of follow-up, and examined cancer trigger risk factors.
resultsCancer-specific trigger events affected 19% of patients over the initial treatment year. The trigger burden varied by disease and metastatic status, from 6% of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer to 41% and 50% of those with metastatic colorectal and lung cancers, respectively. The most prevalent triggers were abnormal serum bicarbonate, blood transfusion, non-contrast chest CT scan following radiation therapy, and hypoxemia. Among patients with metastatic disease, 10% had one trigger event and 29% had two or more. Triggers were more common among older patients, women, non-whites, patients with low family incomes, and those without a college education.
conclusionsOncology-specific triggers offer a promising method for identifying potential patient safety events among patients across cancer care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.