Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38888674›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

How do patients interpret and respond to a novel patient-reported eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG)?

Rebecca Fillipo, Thomas W Leblanc, Katelyn E Plyler, Cara Arizmendi, Debra M Henke, Theresa Coles

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Changes in nutritional status in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Rebecca FillipoCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States. Rebecca.fillipo@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-7971
Thomas W LeblancDivision of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Katelyn E PlylerCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Cara ArizmendiEvinova, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Debra M HenkeCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Theresa ColesCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.

Funding

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 75F40120C00069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePerformance status is an important concept in oncology, but is typically clinician-reported. Efforts are underway to include patient-reported measures in cancer care, which may improve patient symptoms, quality of life and overall survival. The purpose of this study was to gain a preliminary understanding of how patients determined their physical performance status based on a novel patient-reported version of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) scale.

methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews, including concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing as part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) to investigate how participants selected their answers to a novel patient-reported ECOG. Participants were administered the patient-reported ECOG and asked to describe devices and modifications used to keep up with daily activities.

resultsParticipants generally understood the ECOG as intended. Participants with recent changes in status had some difficulty selecting an answer. Most participants used modifications and assistive devices in their daily lives but did not incorporate these into their rational for the ECOG.

conclusionThe potential benefits of a patient-reported ECOG are numerous and this study demonstrates that participants were able to understand and answer the patient-reported ECOG as intended. We recommend future evaluation for the most-appropriate recall period, whether to include modifications in the ECOG instructions, and if increasing the number of response options to the patient-reported ECOG may improve confidence when providing an answer.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerCognitive interviewingPatient-reported outcomesPerformance status

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.