ArticleBMJ open2021
'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review.BMC 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
objectivesMeasuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer.
settingNetwork of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon).
methodsBy reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patients with lung cancer was composed and subsequently prioritised by expert's opinion. Three external parties, with expertise on lung cancer, clinical management and public health, evaluated and reduced the list of indicators to a working set. Finally, the resulting selection of outcome indicators was tested for feasibility and discrimination in patient data, by collecting retrospective data and performing regression and survival analyses.
participantsDevelopment of the indicator set in six Santeon hospitals. Retrospective cohort study in 5922 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (all types and stages).
resultsSelected outcome indicators were divided into three levels of outcome (tiers). The first tier about survival and the process of recovery include mortality, survival, positive resection margins, rethoracotomy after resection and quality of life at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Tier 2 concerning the sustainability of the recovery include complications after resection and toxicity after chemotherapy and/or radiation. Tier 3 about sustainability of health revealed no measurable outcomes. The retrospective data collection showed differences between hospitals and variation in case mix.
conclusionA relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer was systematically developed. This set has the potential to compare quality of care between hospitals and inform patients with lung cancer about outcomes. The project is ongoing in the current Santeon Value-Based Health Care programme through quality and improvement cycles.
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.