Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35701055›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.

Joanna Yang, Tori Barabash, Luckshi Rajendran, Alyson L Mahar, Amy T Hsu, Paul D James, Lesley Gotlib Conn, Frances C Wright, Claire Ludwig, Ekaterina Kosyachkova and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

13 authors.

Joanna YangTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0593-4203
Tori BarabashCancer Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Evaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Luckshi RajendranDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alyson L MaharFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Amy T HsuClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Paul D JamesDepartment of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lesley Gotlib ConnTory Trauma Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute Evaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frances C WrightCancer Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Evaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Claire LudwigSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ekaterina KosyachkovaStomach Cancer Foundation of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Julie DeleemansDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Natalie G CoburnCancer Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Evaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Julie HalletCancer Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Evaluative Clinical Sciences Platform, Toronto, Ontario, Canada julie.hallet@sunnybrook.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFollowing a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsAdultHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CareResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicAdult oncologyColorectal surgeryGastrointestinal tumoursHepatobiliary surgeryHepatobiliary tumoursONCOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID35701055
PMCPMC9198790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.