ArticlePhysical therapy research2020
Comparison between quantitative and subjective assessments of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Physical therapy research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two-year follow-up of neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: longitudinal insights on depression, anxiety, memory and adaptation in the INSPIRE cohort.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the reliability and validity of clinically-relevant outcome measures for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Development of the consensus-based recommendations for Podiatry care of Neuropathy In Cancer Survivors (PodNICS): a Delphi consensus study of Australian podiatrists.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common adverse event experienced by cancer patients. In general, CIPN is evaluated subjectively based on patient self-assessment or clinician-reported scales; evidence supporting the utility and validity of quantitative sensory tests (QST) is lacking in this patient population. The aim of this study was to objectively assess CIPN of lower extremities by QSTs, and to evaluate the concordance between QSTs and subjective assessments.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, outpatients with cancer receiving chemotherapy were recruited at a single university hospital. We assessed CIPN at the lower extremities at baseline and three months after baseline. The QSTs were performed by applying a monofilament and a tuning fork to determine touch and vibration thresholds, respectively, at the affected site. Subjective assessments were performed based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) toxicity grade. Kappa coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concordance between QSTs and subjective assessments.
resultsAfter exclusion and drop-outs during follow-up, nineteen patients were included in the analysis. The prevalence of patients with abnormal sensation was 37% based on QSTs, 32% based on the VAS, and 14% based on CTCAE grading, respectively. Kappa coefficients were 0.32 between QSTs and VAS, and 0.28 between QSTs and CTCAE.
conclusionsThe concordance rates between quantitative and subjective assessments were low. CIPN should be assessed using both quantitative and subjective assessments.
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.