ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2024
Improving Practice in a Head and Neck Oncology Clinic Using the PRO-CTCAE Tool.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of patient-reported outcome item libraries in cancer research: an EORTC Quality of Life Group study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatment report many side effects. Using patient-reported outcomes can assist with care management. Objectives: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to implement the patient-reported outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system, reduce patient hydration visits, and measure provider satisfaction with the PRO-CTCAE survey. Methods: Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive statistics for means were used to summarize the data for survey completion rate and for the provider satisfaction questionnaire. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare hydration visits before and after implementation of the PRO-CTCAE survey. Findings: The PRO-CTCAE surveys had a response rate of 91.2% (323/354) when telehealth visits were omitted. Hydration in the presurvey group was 23.5% (150/637) and in the postsurvey group was 38.5% (165/429), a 15% absolute percentage increase (Fisher's exact Implications: The PRO-CTCAE survey allowed the patient to report their symptoms prior to discussing them with their provider. Providers were able to expedite symptom management and get information to patients in a timely manner. The PRO-CTCAE survey should be considered a part of a multidisciplinary approach to caring for patients.
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.