ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2020
Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review.
Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Melatonin in cancer treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Development of a Core Set of Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Signs and Symptoms to Facilitate Early Recognition of Acute Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Toxicities.JCO oncology practice · 2023Pooled it
- The patient-reported outcomes measurement information systems (PROMIS®) physical function and its derivative measures in adults: a systematic review of content validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Quality of life in cancer patients at the end of radiotherapy compared to a general population sample in Germany.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Core Outcomes of Self-Care Behaviours in Patients with Breast Cancer Treated with Oral Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Evidence gaps in conservative non-pharmacological interventions and guideline implementation for high-burden non-communicable diseases: protocol for an overview of reviews.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Identification of Key Elements in Prostate Cancer for Ontology Building via a Multidisciplinary Consensus Agreement.Cancers · 2023Article
- Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.Clinical epidemiology · 2023Review
- An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Using patient experiences to evaluate care and expectations in lung cancer: analysis of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey linked with the national cancer registry.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIssues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
methodsStudies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature.
resultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied.
conclusionEfforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.
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.