Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462855›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

A multi-method approach to selecting PRO-CTCAE symptoms for patient-reported outcome in women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

Mille Guldager Christiansen, Helle Pappot, Pernille Tine Jensen, Mansoor Raza Mirza, Mary Jarden, Karin Piil

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Systematic nurse-led consultations based on electronic patient-reported outcomes for women with endometrial or ovarian cancer during chemotherapy-a feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mille Guldager ChristiansenDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. mille.guldager.christiansen@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-1507-1130
Helle PappotDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-5372
Pernille Tine JensenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1637-6040
Mansoor Raza MirzaDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7431-6193
Mary JardenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3040-8384
Karin PiilDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7972-4674
University of Copenhagen · DKAarhus University · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKRoskilde University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with endometrial or ovarian cancer experience a variety of symptoms during chemotherapy. Patient-Reported outcomes (PROs) can provide insight into the symptoms they experience. A PRO tool tailored to this patient population can help accurately monitor adverse events and manage symptoms. The objective of this study was to identify items in the National Cancer Institute's measurement system Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) appropriate for use in a PRO tool for a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing treatment with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) in combination with carboplatin.

methodsA two-phase, sequential multi-methods approach was applied. In phase one, a comprehensive literature search was done to map the toxicity of the applied chemotherapeutics and phase III clinical studies. Phase two, which comprised selecting the PRO-CTCAE items, included discussions with and feedback from a patient advisory board, an additional literature search, and focus group interviews with senior oncologists and specialized oncology nurses. A national expert panel facilitated both phases in terms of carefully select items from the PRO-CTCAE library.

resultsPhase one identified 18 symptoms and phase two, three additional ones, leading to the inclusion of 21 PRO-CTCAE symptoms in the final PRO tool. Since PRO-CTCAE also contains one to three sub-questions on the frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities of symptoms, there were 44 potential items.

conclusionsThis study describes taking a multi-method approach to selecting items from the PRO-CTCAE library for use in a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy. By systematically combining diverse approaches, we carefully selected 21 clinically relevant symptoms covered by 44 items in the PRO-CTCAE library. Future studies should investigate the psychometric properties of this PRO tool for women with endometrial or ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresEndometriumFemaleHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Self ReportUnited StatesChemotherapyEndometrial cancerItem selectionOvarian cancerPatient-reported outcomesPROPRO-CTCAE library

Identifiers

PMID37462855
PMCPMC10354345
OpenAlexW4384625965

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.