ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
A Visual Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Lung Cancer From 2013 to 2023.
Review in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and has become one of the malignancies with the highest incidence and mortality; more than half of patients die within one year of being diagnosed with lung cancer. In recent years, the concept of "patient-centered" service has gained popularity, and patients' subjective feelings have gradually been used in clinical decision-making. Therefore, this study determined the application of visual patient report outcomes in the field of lung cancer, in order to provide reference for specific clinical practice.
methodsUsing the Web of Science core collection as the main analysis content, Citespace and VOSviewer were used to conduct this scientometric study.
resultsA total of 499 literatures that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. The most prolific institution was The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the United States dominates this field.
conclusionThe measurement of patient-reported outcomes is considered the gold standard for effectively evaluating patients' perceptions of clinical interventions or diseases. It is recommended that patient-reported outcomes be integrated into routine care for cancer patients in order to enhance communication between patients and healthcare providers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable. All data in this paper are obtained from the web of science database.
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.