ArticleScientific reports2023
Exploring differences in symptomatic adverse events assessment between nurses and physicians in the clinical trial setting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effect of Accreditation on Patient Safety Culture: Insights from a Brazilian Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Cancer Receiving Systemic Treatment Using Step Count Data Measured With Smartphones.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Observational
- Concordance between patient-reported outcomes and CTCAE clinician-reported toxicities during outpatient chemotherapy courses: a retrospective cohort study in routine care.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- Changing patterns of nitrous oxide use and environmental awareness among Brazilian anesthesiologists: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was performed at Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital from April to July 2020 to explore the difference and consistency between nurses and physicians in terms of symptomatic adverse event (AE) assessment. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was utilized by nurses and physicians to assess patients' symptomatic AEs. Patients self-reported their AEs utilizing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Four nurses and three physicians were enrolled to assess patients' symptomatic AEs. Given the same AEs, nurses tended to detect more AEs than physicians, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The toxicity grade reported by nurses and physicians showed no difference for all AEs, except for fatigue (χ
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.