Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954778›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2024

Designing and Validating a Comprehensive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure for Ambulatory Cancer Settings: The Revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for Cancer.

Linda Watson, Claire Link, Siwei Qi, Andrea DeIure, Lindsi Chmielewski, April Hildebrand, Lisa Barbera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Effects of an Online Patient Portal on Nurses' and the Health Care Team's Work in an Outpatient Oncology Setting: A Qualitative Study.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Routine symptom screening and supportive care needs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Linda WatsonApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7802-0082
Claire LinkApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6729-7898
Siwei QiApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5260-2060
Andrea DeIureApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Lindsi ChmielewskiApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
April HildebrandApplied Research & Patient Experience, Supportive Care Services and Patient Experience, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Lisa BarberaTom Baker Cancer Centre, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8302-4117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) information has been routinely collected in Cancer Care Alberta (CCA) for years using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC). There was interest in combining these into a more comprehensive single measure tailored to ambulatory cancer settings. The purpose of this study was to validate an expanded and redesigned ESAS-r called the ESAS-r Cancer.

methodsStakeholder engagement, a review of the literature, and 2 years of CPC data collected in the cancer program informed the addition of six symptoms to the ESAS-r. To assess and validate the measure, 1,600 randomly sampled patients were mailed paper copies of the ESAS-r Cancer, ESAS-r, and a validated, comprehensive PRO measure called the Memorial System Assessment Scale-Short Form (MSAS-SF), which is often used with patients with cancer. Canonical Correlation Analysis and exploratory factor analyses were performed to assess concurrent and construct validity of the ESAS-r Cancer against ESAS-r, using MSAS-SF as the reference measure for comparison. Cronbach α was calculated to assess reliability.

resultsFour hundred and sixty-one patients (29% response rate) completed all three questionnaires. ESAS-r Cancer showed higher numerical correlation than ESAS-r and accounted for more information included on MSAS-SF, explaining slightly more variance than ESAS-r (75.2%

conclusionESAS-r Cancer is now in use with patients throughout CCA. This valid and reliable PRO measure can be used by other cancer or specialized health care programs who wish to routinely assess common symptoms.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSymptom AssessmentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38954778
PMCPMC11649173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.