Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32129865›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Patient Experience Captured by Quality-of-Life Measurement in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Alyson Haslam, Diana Herrera-Perez, Jennifer Gill, Vinay Prasad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness of dance movement therapy and dance movement interventions on cancer patients' health-related outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Construct validity and responsiveness of a health-related symptom index for persons either treated or monitored for anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL): AMC-A01/-A03.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Quality of life, function, and symptom trajectory patterns following salivary gland cancer treatment: a 5-year prospective cohort study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Trajectory of quality of life among patients with cancer at the end of life: a longitudinal survey study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alyson HaslamKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Diana Herrera-PerezKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Jennifer GillKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Vinay PrasadDivision of Hematology Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in cancer medicine, especially because drugs are becoming more costly and may only result in modest gains in overall survival. However, there has been no descriptive analysis for the points at which QoL is measured in cancer trials. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of studies that measure QoL at different points and see how many studies measure QoL for the entirety of a patient's life. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis includes all articles on oncology clinical trials in the 3 highest-impact oncology journals, published between July 2015 and June 2018, that reported QoL outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data were abstracted on when QoL was assessed and the characteristics of these studies. Results: For all 149 studies that met inclusion criteria, QoL assessment was high during treatment (104 articles [69.8%]), during follow-up (81 articles [54.4%]), and after the end of the intervention (68 articles [45.6%]). In 5 of the 149 studies (3.4%), QoL was assessed until death, including in only 1 of the 74 studies on metastatic or incurable cancers. Among these 5 studies, only 1 (20%) used a drug intervention, 1 (20%) used a behavioral intervention, and 2 (40%) used a radiation intervention; only 1 of 5 was in the metastatic setting. The number of studies that reported a positive QoL outcome (ie, QoL outcome was more favorable in the intervention group than in the control group) was between 42 of 81 articles (51.9%) and 16 of 28 articles (57.1%) for most QoL assessment points but only 1 of 5 articles (20%) for studies measuring QoL until death. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that most clinical trials assessed QoL during the treatment or intervention and often during a given amount of follow-up but infrequently assessed QoL on disease progression and rarely followed QoL until the end of the patient's life. Most studies reporting QoL until the end of life reported worse QoL outcomes for the intervention group than the control group. Future research and policy recommendations should consider not just short-term QoL outcomes but QoL outcomes throughout the patient's cancer care.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeClinical ProtocolsClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNeoplasmsResearch DesignRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32129865
PMCPMC7057133

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.