Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37996640›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

Gianluca Sampieri, Huaqi Li, Philopateer Ataalla, Kaitlyn Merriman, Christopher W Noel, Julie Hallet, Natalie Coburn, Irene Karam, Martin Smoragiewicz, Brian Wong and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Gianluca SampieriDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Huaqi LiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Philopateer AtaallaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kaitlyn MerrimanInsitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Christopher W NoelDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Julie HalletInsitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Natalie CoburnInsitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Irene KaramDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Martin SmoragiewiczDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Brian WongInsitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Rui Fu *Insitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Antoine Eskander *Insitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. antoine.eskander@mail.utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceCollecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care improves patient-clinician communication, decision making, and overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations exist regarding standardized ways to collect, store, and interpret PRO data. However, evidence on incorporating PROs into cancer process of care, especially the type of HIs that are warranted after observing a concerning PRO and the effectiveness of these HIs are lacking.

objectiveThis study summarizes HIs triggered after PRO completion and their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes for adults being treated for cancer types that are resource intensive and associated with high symptom burden [i.e., gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and head and neck cancer (HNC)]. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with poor implementation of PROs. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search of peer-reviewed publications on MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines from 1 January 2012, to 31 July 2022. Trial and real-world studies describing HIs after PRO completion for adult patients being treated for GI, lung, and HNC were included. Sixteen studies involving 144,496 patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

findingsOf the 16 included studies, 5 included patients with HNC. Commonly used PRO measurement tools were the PRO-CTCAE and ESAS. Only three studies reported specific HIs delivered in response to concerning PROs and measured their effectiveness on patient outcomes. In all three studies, these HIs significantly improved cancer-related care. The most common HIs undertaken in response to concerning PROs were referrals to other specialists/allied healthcare professionals, medication changes, or self-management advice. Provider-related barriers to PRO measurement and delivery included the overwhelming number of alerts, the time required to address each PRO and the unclear role of healthcare providers in response to these alerts. Patient-related barriers included lower digital literacy and socioeconomic status, older age, rural living, and patients suffering from GI and HNC. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review highlights that PRO-triggered HIs are heterogenous and can improve patient quality of life. Further studies are necessary to determine the types of interventions with the greatest impact on patient care and outcomes.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeAdultHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

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.