Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395859›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

Defining research priorities and needs in cancer symptoms for adults diagnosed with cancer: an Australian/New Zealand modified Delphi study.

Vanessa M Yenson, Ingrid Amgarth-Duff, Linda Brown, Cristina M Caperchione, Katherine Clark, Andrea Cross, Phillip Good, Amanda Landers, Tim Luckett, Jennifer Philip and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Implementing integrative nursing for oncology inpatients: a retrospective analysis of project-related routine data from 2021 to 2023.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: an updated clinical practice review for healthcare providers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  4. Research priorities to address supportive care needs in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)-results from a Delphi survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Effects of an urban forest healing program on cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vanessa M YensonUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Vanessa.Yenson@uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7112-0785
Ingrid Amgarth-DuffUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5038-890X
Linda BrownUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4892-5822
Cristina M CaperchioneUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2290-5946
Katherine ClarkUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5438-9064
Andrea CrossConsumer Advocate, Cancer Symptom Trials, IMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Phillip GoodUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-0375
Amanda LandersUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7385-3739
Tim LuckettUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-5409
Jennifer PhilipCST Management Advisory Committee, IMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3312-0645
Christopher SteerCST Management Advisory Committee, IMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7677-3339
Janette L VardyCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5739-5790
Aaron K WongCST Scientific Advisory Committee, Cancer Symptoms Trials, IMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6507-1219
Meera R AgarUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6756-6119
University of Technology Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study asked consumers (patients, carers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to identify the most important symptoms for adults with cancer and potential treatment interventions.

methodsA modified Delphi study was conducted involving two rounds of electronic surveys based on prevalent cancer symptoms identified from the literature. Round 1 gathered information on participant demographics, opinions and/or experience on cancer symptom frequency and impact, and suggestions for interventions and/or service delivery models for further research to improve management of cancer symptoms. In Round 2, respondents ranked the importance of the top ten interventions identified in Round 1. In Round 3, separate expert panels of consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) attempted to reach consensus on the symptoms and interventions previously identified.

resultsConsensus was reached for six symptoms across both groups: fatigue, constipation, diarrhoea, incontinence, and difficulty with urination. Notably, fatigue was the only symptom to reach consensus across both groups in Round 1. Similarly, consensus was reached for six interventions across both groups. These were the following: medicinal cannabis, physical activity, psychological therapies, non-opioid interventions for pain, opioids for breathlessness and cough, and other pharmacological interventions.

conclusionsConsumers and HCPs prioritise differently; however, the symptoms and interventions that reached consensus provide a basis for future research. Fatigue should be considered a high priority given its prevalence and its influence on other symptoms. The lack of consumer consensus indicates the uniqueness of their experience and the need for a patient-centred approach. Understanding individual consumer experience is important when planning research into better symptom management.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAdultAustraliaDelphi TechniqueFatigueHumansNew ZealandResearch DesignCancer symptomsConsumersDelphiHealthcare professionalsNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37395859
PMCPMC10317881
OpenAlexW4382918128

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.