ReviewCancer medicine2024
Review of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials addressing head/neck cancers.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking dental research: the importance of patient-reported outcomes and minimally clinically important difference.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Article
- Review of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials addressing head/neck cancers.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the frequency of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers.
methodsWe included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000-2002, 2010-2012, and 2020-2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non-PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined.
resultsThere was a reduction in the frequency of non-PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non-PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non-PROs was identified.
conclusionsThere has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non-PROs were the most prevalent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.