ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021
A pilot study of population-based, patient-reported outcome collection in cancer survivors.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine feasibility and acceptability of completing PROs questionnaires at completion and 1 year after curative cancer treatment.
methodsPatients assessed in a nurse-led end of treatment survivorship clinic, at a tertiary referral centre, recruited between October 2015 and July 2016 were mailed a survey at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The survey included validated PRO questionnaires. A target response rate for feasibility, defined as the proportion of the eligible population approached that completed the survey, was set at 70%. Qualitative feedback regarding the survey was collected from participants.
resultsOf the 47 eligible patients approached, 34 (72.4%) agreed to participate with 29 (61.9%) completing the survey at baseline, and 21 (44.7%) at follow-up. Respondents lost to follow-up at 12 months had clinically meaningful lower scores on all QLQ-C30 functioning scales and 8 out of 9 symptom scales/items. Qualitative feedback from survey respondents indicated the content was relevant and acceptable. Participants expressed willingness to complete a similar survey approximately once per year and a higher preference for completing the survey in hard copy compared with online.
conclusionsCancer survivors are willing to provide information on a range of PROs, but those with higher needs were the ones less likely to complete surveys. There is scope to improve the response rate and representativeness of the patient cohort captured. Future research should identify strategies to optimise recruitment when collecting PROs data from cancer survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33411044What 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.