Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37750858›Full record

Observational studyThe British journal of radiology2023

Factors associated with quality of life in patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a secondary cross-sectional analysis of data from a prospective multicenter observational study.

Tetsuo Saito, Naoto Shikama, Takeo Takahashi, Hideyuki Harada, Shuichi Ueno, Akifumi Notsu, Hiroki Shirato, Kazunari Yamada, Haruka Uezono, Yutaro Koide and 20 more

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone-metastasis tumors.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025
    Review
  3. Observational
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

30 authors.

Tetsuo SaitoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Arao Municipal Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1955-6773
Naoto ShikamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takeo TakahashiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hideyuki HaradaDivision of Radiation Therapy, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Shuichi UenoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Akifumi NotsuClinical Research Center, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Hiroki ShiratoGlobal Center for Biomedical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan.
Kazunari YamadaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan.
Haruka UezonoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan.
Yutaro KoideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Hikaru KubotaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Takuya YamasakiDepartment of Radiology, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Kei ItoDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Joichi HeiannaDepartment of Radiology, Nanbu Tokushukai Hospital, Okinawa, Japan.
Yukinori OkadaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Ayako TonariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyorin University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Norio KatohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan.
Hitoshi WadaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Southern TOHOKU Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan.
Yasuo EjimaDepartment of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.
Kayo YoshidaDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi KosugiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujieda Municipal General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan.
Shigeo TakahashiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kagawa University Hospital, Kagawa, Japan.
Takafumi KomiyamaDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan.
Nobue UchidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Misako MiwaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Miyagi, Japan.
Miho WatanabeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Hisayasu NagakuraDepartment of Radiology, KKR Sapporo Medical Center, Hokkaido, Japan.
Hiroko IkedaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Isao AsakawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan.
Naoyuki ShigematsuDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify factors significantly associated with quality of life (QOL) and determine if these associations are strong enough to predict certain aspects of QOL without measuring them.

methodsWe conducted an exploratory secondary analysis of baseline data of 224 patients (enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021) from a previously published prospective observational study on radiotherapy for bone metastases at 26 centres. Using univariable linear regression, we assessed the association between patient/treatment factors and QOL scale scores as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) and the EORTC QOL Questionnaire Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22).

resultsAge and sex were not significantly associated with QOL. Worse performance status, higher pain scores, and opioid and single-fraction use were significantly associated with most QOL scales; these four factors were associated with worse global QOL, worse functioning status, and more severe symptoms. The coefficients of determination for most QOL scales were less than 0.2, indicating that most of the variability in QOL scores was not explained by any of the explanatory variables.

conclusionPerformance status, pain intensity, and opioid and single-fraction use were significantly associated with most QOL scales. However, the associations were not strong enough to estimate QOL. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: To date, the association between treatment factors and QOL in patients with bone metastases has not been fully studied. We identified the factors that were significantly associated with QOL and found that these associations were not strong enough to predict QOL.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsQuality of LifeAnalgesics, OpioidCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPalliative CareProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID37750858
PMCPMC10607414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.