Observational studyBMJ open2022
Proxy responses regarding quality of life of patients with terminal lung cancer: preliminary results from a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological challenges and potential solutions for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life and medication use among individuals with Angelman syndrome.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- Frailty and the confidence to plan ahead: Decision-making self-efficacy and advance care planning among older adults receiving home healthcare.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Observational
- Outcomes of patients receiving urgent palliative radiotherapy for advanced lung cancer: an observational study.BMC palliative care · 2024Observational
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis prospective study used the EQ-5D utility and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores to analyse the potential usefulness of proxy responses in quality of life assessments of Japanese patients with terminal lung cancer sufficiently healthy to communicate and reply by themselves. We did not investigate the potential usefulness of using proxy responses for patients who could not respond by themselves.
designA prospective observational study.
settingSingle centre.
participantsThe EQ-5D and VAS responses were gathered from 30 in-hospital patients with lung cancer for a total of three observation points. At nearly the same time, two nurses responded by providing proxy responses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: EQ-5D and VAS responses.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the patients' and nurses' responses for EQ-5D utility and VAS scores. For the five dimensions of the EQ-5D, significant differences were found between the patients' and nurses' responses for usual activities (patients' response 1.64±0.07, nurses' response 1.41±0.05, p=0.03) and anxiety/depression (patients' response: 1.40±0.05, nurses' response: 1.19±0.03, p=0.02). There was a significant weak positive correlation between patients' and nurses' responses regarding changes in responses from the first to the third observation point (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ρ=0.228; p<0.01).
conclusionThe results suggest that proxy responses are useful because there were no significant differences between the patients' and nurses' responses for EQ-5D utility and VAS scores at the three observation points. These findings should, however, be verified in future large-scale trials.
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.