Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35973158›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2022

Linking the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Item Library to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

Alexandra Gilbert, Claire Piccinin, Galina Velikova, Mogens Groenvold, Dagmara Kuliś, Jane M Blazeby, Andrew Bottomley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mapping the EORTC item library to the World Health Organization international classification of functioning, disability and health: a content analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Alexandra GilbertLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Claire PiccininQuality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3918-1174
Galina VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1899-5942
Mogens GroenvoldBispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dagmara KuliśQuality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2289-2113
Jane M BlazebyNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-3330
Andrew BottomleyQuality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28301Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Item Library is an interactive online platform currently composed of 950 unique items (questions) derived from 67 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. PROs complement clinician adverse event (AE) reporting classifications like the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). This work aims to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from the EORTC Item Library through linking individual items to corresponding AEs.

methodsThe EORTC Item Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described within the AE's title, description, or grading. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms. Other nonsymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification. Further descriptive codes (eg, multiple issues) were allocated to enable descriptive analysis. Two raters independently coded 26.2% (n = 249) of the items. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, followed by discussion with two additional raters to reach consensus.

resultsOverall, 625 (65.8%) EORTC items were linked to 208 different AEs. Three hundred sixty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer-related issues and were categorized into seven descriptive classifications, including body image; emotional impact of a symptom, diagnosis, or treatment; global health and quality of life; and impact on life and daily activities. Inter-rater agreement for independent coding was 79.1%. Bowel urgency and tenesmus were identified as missing symptoms in CTCAEv5.0.

conclusionThe EORTC Item Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues important to patients with cancer. Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO items may facilitate PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeHumansPalliative CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35973158
PMCPMC9649281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.