Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Comparison of the sensitivities of pharmacotherapy-related and disease-specific quality of life measures in response to pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care for cancer outpatients: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of clinical pharmacists in palliative care team: A scoping review.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo data were previously available regarding the sensitivities of pharmacotherapy-related and disease-specific quality of life measures to pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care (PC).
aimThe aim was to compare the sensitivities of two health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, i.e. the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure of Pharmaceutical Therapy for Quality of Life (PROMPT-QoL) versus the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), in response to pharmacist-led PC for cancer outpatients.
methodA randomised controlled trial was conducted on cancer outpatients of a tertiary Thai hospital. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to a PC group receiving PC interventions or a usual care (UC) group receiving pharmacist's standard care. The HRQoL of both groups was assessed using the PROMPT-QoL and the FACT-G before and after intervention. The sensitivities of the two measures were determined using standardised mean differences (SMDs).
resultsA total of 237 patients in two arms (120 PC vs. 117 UC patients) completed the trial. With PC interventions, all eight PROMPT-QoL domains and 3 out of 4 FACT-G domains were significantly improved. The PROMPT-QoL yielded SMDs ranging from 0.24 to 1.68 that were considered moderate-to-high sensitivity, while the FACT-G provided moderate sensitivity with SMDs of 0.31-0.64. The average SMDs of four FACT-G domains was 0.50 and SMD of the total score was 0.80. Eight PROMPT-QoL domains had the average SMD of 0.60 and the total score SMD was 1.40.
conclusionThe PROMPT-QoL is more sensitive to detect HRQoL when delivering pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care to cancer outpatients.
trial registrationTCTR20210809008.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38240965What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.