ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2023
Rehabilitation outcomes for people with lung cancer (UNITE): protocol for the development of a core outcome set.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Sing-a-Lung 2.0: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial to investigate the effects and mechanisms of online-delivered singing training versus usual care 6-18 months after surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Patient-reported outcomes after surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer and perceptions of postsurgical rehabilitation programmes.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Observational
- Article
- Mapping the research landscape of pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer: a bibliometric analysis [1997-2025].Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Development of a clinical core outcome set to evaluate lung cancer rehabilitation.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Beyond survival: improving lung cancer rehabilitation through standardised outcomes.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Pulmonary rehabilitation improves lung function and exercise tolerance in elderly non-surgical NSCLC patients.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients.Trials · 2024Article
- "The Ability to Go Out into the World Is the Most Important Thing"-A Qualitative Study of Important Exercise Outcomes for People with Lung Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Attendance rate and perceived relevance related to type, content, and delivery of current rehabilitation programmes after surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith treatment-related improvements in survival, rehabilitation is essential to improve function and health-related quality of life and manage the high symptom burden associated with lung cancer. Despite this, significant heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and instruments used to evaluate lung cancer rehabilitation programme impact. This study aims to develop a core set of clinically relevant lung cancer rehabilitation outcomes for use in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An international Delphi consensus study involving consumer, healthcare professional and researcher stakeholders to determine which outcomes to include and how to measure these. Stage 1 (preliminary): mixed methods to develop the potential list of outcomes (1) overview of systematic reviews of lung cancer exercise interventions and (2) focus groups and individual interviews with people with lung cancer. Stage 2: outcomes were grouped according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains. Stage 3: to determine priority outcomes for core outcome set (COS) inclusion participants will rate each outcome's importance (one-nine-point Likert scale) over two-three survey rounds. Stage 4: following review by the steering committee, a consensus meeting will be held if agreement on the COS has not been reached.Stage 5: recommendations will be made regarding a single instrument for measuring each COS outcome by reviewing existing resources where consensus has already been reached. Where resources do not exist the quality and feasibility of potential measurement instruments will be appraised, and the Delphi consensus survey and meeting process outlined in stages 3-4 will be repeated.This protocol adheres to the COS-Standardised Protocol statement and will be conducted and reported according to the COS-Standards for Development recommendations and the COS-Standards for Reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval (20/9/22, University of Melbourne ID 2022-24839-32231-3). Dissemination in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
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.