ArticleCancer2021
Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials.
Article in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining and measuring tolerability in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult oncology: The essential voices.Cancer · 2025Review
- Symptom Documentation in Unstructured Palliative Care Notes of Children and Adolescents With Cancer.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2025Article
- Article
- mHealth Apps in the Digital Marketplace for Pediatric Patients With Cancer: Systematic Search and Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- How we approach sharing child-caregiver PRO disagreement.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2024Article
- Agreement and disagreement between child-caregiver symptom and function reports in pediatric oncology.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Patients With Cancer.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2023Article
- Article
- Self-Reported Health Outcomes of Children and Youth with 10 Chronic Diseases.The Journal of pediatrics · 2022Article
- Lack of Concordance in Symptomatic Adverse Event Reporting by Children, Clinicians, and Caregivers: Implications for Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Article
- The Symptom Experience in Pediatric Cancer: Current Conceptualizations and Future Directions.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- Profile Comparison of Patient-Reported and Proxy-Reported Symptoms in Pediatric Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Can Steps per Day Reflect Symptoms in Children and Adolescents Undergoing Cancer Treatment?Cancer nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Lansky Play-Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child-reported functioning have not been evaluated.
methodsChildren aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed-linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores.
resultsOf 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver- and clinician-reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver- and clinician-reported LPPS ratings and child-reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = -0.46/-0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = -0.26/-0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = -0.32/-0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = -0.17/-0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = -5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = -4.20; P < .01), whereas child-reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable.
conclusionsSignificant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician-reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives.
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.