Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34529139›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

It doesn't stop at validation: patient reported outcome measures require ongoing and iterative development.

Catriona Parker, Andrew Wei, Danny Liew, Ella Zomer, Darshini Ayton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Catriona ParkerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. catriona.parker@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6500-3075
Andrew WeiSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Danny LiewSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Ella ZomerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Darshini AytonHealth and Social Care Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University PhD candidature scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are a pillar of modern-day patient-centered care and clinical trials. PROs complement clinical information with the patient's own report about their experiences of health, without influence or interpretation by other people. However, choosing an appropriate PRO measure from the many available remains challenging for clinicians and researchers. One of the common pitfalls in instrument selection is that the instrument is often developed with a different patient population than the group being cared for or researched. This difference can result in salient items of importance to the patients, being under-reported or missed altogether. We highlight, through the reporting of some of our own data, that PRO instrument development does not stop with a validation study and we provide suggestions for future research for further improvement in this space.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansAcute leukaemiaAcute myeloid leukaemiaCancerPatient reported outcome measures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.