Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36479138›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2022

Brazilian breast cancer patient-reported outcomes: What really matters for these women.

Aline Silveira Silva, Ana Cláudia Wekmuller França, Matheus Piccin Padilla, Luana Schroeder Macedo, Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano, Marisa da Silva Santos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aline Silveira SilvaGrupo de Pesquisa em Acesso a Medicamentos e Uso Responsável, University of Brasilia (AMUR-UNB), Brasilia, DF, Brazil.
Ana Cláudia Wekmuller FrançaNúcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, National Institute of Cardiology (NATS-INC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Matheus Piccin PadillaNúcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, National Institute of Cardiology (NATS-INC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Luana Schroeder MacedoNúcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, National Institute of Cardiology (NATS-INC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Carlos Alberto da Silva MaglianoNúcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, National Institute of Cardiology (NATS-INC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Marisa da Silva SantosNúcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, National Institute of Cardiology (NATS-INC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversidade de Brasília · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) are directly reported by the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else and pertains to the patient's health, quality of life, or functional status associated with health care or treatment. It can provide patients' perspectives regarding treatment benefit and harm beyond survival and are often the outcomes of most importance to patients. This study aims to describe and analyze outcomes reported by Brazilian women diagnosed with breast cancer and rank the most important attributes for these patients. Methods: Observational descriptive study composed of exploratory interviews followed by online questionnaires applied to a convenience sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Results: Twelve women were interviewed to explore the main outcomes and preferences about their treatments, such as the most common side effects and the most impacted aspects of life after diagnosis and BC treatment. Psychological, emotional, and sexual impacts were frequently described as impacted aspects. Fifty-three women, from all the five Brazilian regions, answered the online questionnaire. Following an order of importance ranking, the following outcomes were chosen, respectively: overall survival, progression-free survival; and quality of life. The treatment effects that were considered less important, among this sample, were pain and adverse events. Conclusions: Thinking about expanding the therapeutic quality of users, it is essential to take into account the experiences of patients. PRO is a trend in current research to achieve this goal, in order to influence the decisions of HTA agencies about the importance of valuing outcomes that affect patients' lives.

Indexed as

breast cancerpatient experiencepatient perspectivepatient preferencespatient-reported outcomespreference studyPROPROs

Identifiers

PMID36479138
PMCPMC9720123
OpenAlexW4309743908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.