Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32684503›Full record

ReviewClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2020

Beyond Performance Status.

R Simcock, J Wright

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R SimcockBrighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK. Electronic address: richard.simcock@nhs.net.
J WrightBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oncologists should recognise the need to move beyond the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score. ECOG PS is a longstanding and ubiquitous feature of oncology. It was evolved 40 years ago as an adaption of the 70-year-old Karnofsky performance score. It is short, easily understood and part of the global language of oncology. The wide prevalence of the ECOG PS attests to its proven utility and worth to help triage patient treatment. The ECOG PS is problematic. It is a unidimensional functional score. It is mostly physician assessed, subjective and therefore open to bias. It fails to account for multimorbidity, frailty or cognition. Too often the PS is recorded only once in wilful ignorance of a patient's changing physical state. As modern oncology offers an ever-widening array of therapies that are 'personalised' to tumour genotype, modern oncologists must strive to better define patient phenotype. Using a wider range of scoring and assessment tools, oncologists can identify deficits that may be reversed or steps taken to mitigate detrimental effects of treatment. These tools can function well to identify those patients who would benefit from comprehensive assessment. This overview identifies the strengths of ECOG PS but highlights the weaknesses and where these are supported by other measures. A strong recommendation is made here to move to routine use of the Clinical Frailty Score to start to triage patients and most appropriately design treatments and rehabilitation interventions.

Indexed as

AgedHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Care PlanningPhysiciansRisk AdjustmentSeverity of Illness IndexSymptom AssessmentComorbidityfrailtymultimorbiditypolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32684503
PMCPMC7365102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.