Observational studyBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
Patient factors associated with discrepancies between patient-reported and clinician-documented peripheral neuropathy in women with breast cancer receiving paclitaxel: A pilot study.
Observational study in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preventive effect of goshajinkigan on paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy: an open-label, randomized phase II study (OLCSG2101).The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Factors affecting chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study in China.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Optimizing Assessment of and Education About Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Among Breast Cancer Survivors.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic lupus erythematosus: mixed methods analysis of patient-derived attributional evidence in the international INSPIRE project.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Patient-reported strategies for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Estimating Patient Satisfaction Through a Language Processing Model: Model Development and Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Development of a keyword library for capturing PRO-CTCAE-focused "symptom talk" in oncology conversations.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Association of Taxane Type With Patient-Reported Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Among Patients With Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Review
- Clinical assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a discrete choice experiment of patient preferences.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Weekly Paclitaxel-Induced Neurotoxicity in Breast Cancer: Outcomes and Dose Response.The oncologist · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDiscrepancies between clinicians' assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have been described, though the underlying reasons are unknown. Our objective was to identify potential patient-specific factors associated with under-describing of CIPN to clinicians in women with non-metastatic breast cancer treated with paclitaxel.
methodsPatients enrolled in an observational study (n = 60) completed weekly CIPN PRO using the EORTC CIPN20. Clinician-documented CIPN using the NCI CTCAE were abstracted from the electronic medical record and paired with CIPN20 data at weeks 7 and 10. Patients were classified as under-describers if their CIPN20 was above the 80th percentile of the CIPN20 distribution for that CTCAE grade from an independent clinical trial (N08CA). Demographics, Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC), Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), and health literacy assessment were collected post-treatment via survey. Repeated measures cumulative logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with under-describing CIPN.
resultsForty-two women completed the survey (response rate 70%). Three and 9 patients were categorized as under-describers at weeks 7 and 10, respectively. Women who were not working (OR = 9.00, 95%CI 1.06-76.15), had lower income (OR = 7.04, 95%CI 1.5-32.99), and displayed higher trust in their oncologist's competence (OR = 1.29, 95%CI 1.03-1.62 for a 0.1-unit increase in score) were more likely to under-describe CIPN symptoms.
conclusionsThis preliminary study identified non-working status, low income and trust in oncologist's competence as potential factors influencing under-description of CIPN to the clinical team. Further work is needed to clarify these relationships and test additional factors.
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.