Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37976441›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2023

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice.

Katie L Spencer, Kate L Absolom, Matthew J Allsop, Samuel D Relton, Jessica Pearce, Kuan Liao, Sairah Naseer, Omolola Salako, Daniel Howdon, Jenny Hewison and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Improving Survival Prediction of Head and Neck Cancer Patients by Modeling Long-term Symptom Burden.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cirrhosis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Katie L SpencerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6846-4341
Kate L AbsolomLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-6643
Matthew J AllsopLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7399-0194
Samuel D ReltonLeeds Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jessica PearceLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6553-2652
Kuan LiaoDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Health Informatics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8840-0599
Sairah NaseerSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8812-8417
Omolola SalakoCollege of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0003-3165-8879
Daniel HowdonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8052-2893
Jenny HewisonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Galina VelikovaLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1899-5942
Corinne Faivre-FinnInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5617-9781
Hilary L BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1978-5795
Sabine N van der VeerDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Health Informatics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
University of Leeds · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Lagos · NGUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice.

methodsWe organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions.

resultsSpecific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population.

conclusionDeveloping and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37976441
PMCPMC10681558
OpenAlexW4388751793

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.