ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022
Palliative Care Outcome Scale Assessment for Cancer Patients Eligible for Palliative Care: Perspectives on the Relationship between Patient-Reported Outcome and Objective Assessments.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric properties of palliative care outcome measures: a multi-centre study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Comparing EQ-5D-5L and IPOS among residents with malignant tumors in a community home hospice: a longitudinal study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementation of a patient and staff reported measure for screening of palliative concerns of patients with heart failure: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Palliative care and social practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The importance of patient-reported outcome (PRO), i.e., prioritizing patient voice, has increased in cancer treatment, as well as palliative and supportive settings. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), a hybrid evaluation consisting of "patient evaluation" (PRO) and "peer evaluation" by medical professionals, was developed as a successor version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) in 2013 and has been utilized worldwide. The Japanese version of the IPOS (IPOS-J) was developed and released in 2019. The purpose of this study was to explore the applicability of the IPOS-J to clinical practice in the future. (2) Methods: We conducted the following two studies with terminally ill cancer patients: (i) Can an evaluation with the IPOS-J performed by medical professionals (peer evaluation) replace the STAS-J evaluation? (ii) Can the quality of palliative care improve by combining the IPOS-J patient evaluation with the peer evaluation? (3) Results: The overall intervention rate and urgent intervention rate for the STAS-J and IPOS-J was 34.4 vs. 34.1% (
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.