Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31978145›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review on reporting of methods in randomized controlled trials.

Stéphane Faury, Jérôme Foucaud

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stéphane FauryLaboratory Handicap, Activity, Cognition, Health, EA, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Jérôme FoucaudINCa, Institut National du Cancer, Boulogne Billancourt, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9246-7721
Institut National du Cancer · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently shown tremendous promise in the treatment of diverse cancers. The available data suggests that ICIs are well tolerated in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) compared to other anticancer therapies. However, it appears that instruments currently used to evaluate HRQOL in this context may fail to capture important symptomatology unique to ICIs. This systematic review was designed to assess the adequacy of methods used to report HRQOL in cancer patients treated with ICIs and to identify the quality of life scales used.

methodA systematic review was performed (systematic registration number: PROSPERO: CRD42019121427). A search of the PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences collection, and SocINDEX databases was carried out for publications in English and in French. Relevant databases were searched from the earliest records through to March 2019. Publications were selected if they reported on HRQOL in patients with cancer treated by ICIs. Risk of bias was scored using the Cochrane Collaboration bias assessment tool.

resultsOur search identified 144 publications between 2012 and 2019, of which 15 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that even though the overall reporting of HRQOL was deemed to be of good quality, the data available was marred by methodological aspects such as the lack of HRQOL research hypotheses and the lack of questionnaires validated for cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the art and identifies gaps in knowledge on HRQOL analysis with respect to ICIs. It also suggests avenues for further research.

Indexed as

HumansImmunotherapyNeoplasmsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31978145
PMCPMC6980610
OpenAlexW3001224707

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.