ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2020
Exploring the nausea experience among female patients with breast cancer; A pilot interview study.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNausea is a difficult symptom to report and measure in clinical trials. We conducted a pilot interview study to improve our understanding of the nausea experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsFemale patients with breast cancer that had experienced nausea during radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy underwent semi-structured interviews that focused on patient-defined and standard definitions, preferences for nausea grading scales, and nausea sub-features: intensity, location, timing/duration, character, associated symptoms, precipitating/alleviating factors, impact on quality of life.
results10 patients were interviewed. Patients defined nausea more variably than vomiting and retching/dry heaving. An ordinal grading scale with a 0-10 intensity range was preferred over visual-analogue and qualitative scales. Patients had experienced different intensities of nausea and deemed reporting their worst, average and least intensities feasible. High-intensity episodes were deemed more problematic than low-intensity episodes regardless of their duration. The duration and character of nausea were difficult to describe. A range of associated symptoms, precipitating and alleviating factors were documented. Nausea had a detrimental impact on quality of life.
conclusionsNausea has a range of subjective and objective features. Our pilot study provided valuable information that will inform the design of a planned larger survey study. Creating an operational clinical trial definition for nausea appears feasible.
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.