ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2020
Patient General Condition at Diagnosis: A Systematic Evaluation for Adults Diagnosed with Hematologic Malignancies.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Several societies have published recommendations for evaluating older adults with cancer in standard conditions. It is vital to assure a proper systematic patient condition evaluation, not only in the oldest (geriatric assessment) but in all adult patients. We have investigated the feasibility of a systematic evaluation of the general condition of all patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies, and the degree of acceptance by the clinical team, in a prospective cohort of 182 consecutive adults, by using the ECOG performance status scale (ECOG, age 18 and over, 18+), Lee Index for Older Adults (LEE, 50+), Geriatric Assessment in Hematology (GAH, 65+), and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA, 75+). Clinical team acceptance was analyzed with a visual analogue scale, and the objective feasibility was calculated as the proportion of patients that could be finally evaluated with each tool. Acceptance was high, but the objective feasibility was progressively lower as the complexity of the different tools increased (ECOG 100%, LEE 99.4%, GAH 93.2%, and CGA 67.9%). LEE and GAH categories showed a weak concordance (Cohen's Kappa 0.24) that was slight between LEE and CGA (Kappa 0.18). Unexpectedly, we found no significant association between the GAH and CGA categories (
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.