ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) into Personalised Follow-up for Patients after Radiotherapy. A Feasibility Study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Mapping immune checkpoint inhibitor side effects to item libraries for use in real-time side effect monitoring systems.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Chemotoxicity and Associated Risk Factors in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE Materials and Methods: Patients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE Results: Out of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE Conclusion: The adapted-REQUITE questionnaire has shown a superior correlation to clinician-reported outcomes and higher patient preference than the PRO-CTCAE
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.