Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31948422›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

GC-PROM: validation of a patient-reported outcomes measure for Chinese patients with gastric cancer.

Xiaojuan Hu, Fen Zhao, Hongmei Yu, Yanhong Luo, Jinchun Liu, Yanbo Zhang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic review of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with gastric cancer: capturing cross-cultural differences.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Xiaojuan HuDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, 56 South XinJian Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi Province, China.
Fen ZhaoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Shanxi Provincial Peoples Hospital, 29 Twin Towers Temple Street, Taiyuan, 030012, Shanxi Province, China.
Hongmei YuDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, 56 South XinJian Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi Province, China.
Yanhong LuoDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, 56 South XinJian Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi Province, China.
Jinchun LiuDepartment of Internal Medicine, First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, 85 South JieFang Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi Province, China. zxr610624@163.com.
Yanbo ZhangDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, 56 South XinJian Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi Province, China. sxmuzyb@126.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81273180Shanxi Provincial Key Research and Development Project 201603D321101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing recognition that PROs are important in the estimation of the burden of long-term survival among patients with gastric cancer. The study aimed to develop a disease-specific instrument to assess patient-reported outcomes for Chinese patients with gastric cancer.

methodFollowing the FDA's draft guidance for patient-reported outcome, conceptual framework and item pool were defined based on relevant existing work. A draft scale was formed after revising some items based on feedback from experts and Chinese patients with gastric cancer. The pre-survey and formal survey were conducted in eight different hospitals in Shanxi Province, and two item-selection process based on classical test theory and item response theory. Finally, the patient-reported outcomes measure for Chinese patients with gastric cancer (GC-PROM) was validated in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility. The minimal clinically important difference was determined by distribution-based method.

resultsThe final GC-PROM consisted of 38 items, 13 subdomains, and 4 domains. Reliability was verified by Cronbach's alpha coefficient for four domains and 13 subdomains respectively. The validity results showed that the multidimensional scale fulfilled expectations. In the formal survey, the completion rate was 96.16%, and the average filling time was less than half an hour. The values of the minimal clinically important difference were 4.14, 3.41, 3.37, and 3.28 in the four domains.

conclusionsThe GC-PROM had good reliability, validity, and feasibility and thus can be considered an effective clinical evaluation instrument for Chinese patients with gastric cancer.

Indexed as

AgedChinaFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSocioeconomic FactorsStomach NeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkflowClassical test theoryGastric cancerItem response theoryMinimal clinically important differencePatient-reported outcome

Identifiers

PMID31948422
PMCPMC6966844

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.