Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).
Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients' health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds.
methodsData from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3-4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9.
resultsNFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores.
conclusionThis study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.
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.