ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2024
Breast-cancer specific comprehensive archive of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for clinical research and clinical practice in oncology: Results from the PRO4All project.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital integration of narrative medicine and patient-reported outcome measures to improve understanding of quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: the PERGIQUAL study.The oncologist · 2025Observational
- Assessing user experience with services: measuring subjective well-being in oncology hospitals.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Breast-cancer specific comprehensive archive of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for clinical research and clinical practice in oncology: Results from the PRO4All project.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials is strongly recommended. However, selecting the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is not easy. This study aimed to develop a breast cancer (BC) specific comprehensive archive of PROMs.
methodsAs part of the PRO4All project, we identified available PROMs in oncology by searching facit.org, eortc.org, eprovide.mapi-trust.org, PubMed, ema.europa.eu (European Public Assessment Reports) and published reviews. For this analysis, only BC tools were extracted. We described information about PROM name, type of questionnaire, questionnaire variant(s), recall period, number of items, and presence of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) reference in literature. Then, we assigned each item to a specific domain according to a predefined taxonomy of 38 items for outcome classification.
resultsWe identified and analyzed 383 PROMs. Of these, 29 were BC specific, but 2 were excluded because the questionnaires description was not available. 6 (22.2 %) were variants of another questionnaire. All questionnaires were self-reported. In 6 cases (22.2 %) the recall period to consider was the "last week". The mean number of items per questionnaire was 25.81 (range 6-71). 602 items were assigned to an outcome domain: emotional functioning/wellbeing in 26.6 % of cases, physical functioning in 14.1 %, delivery of care in 10.8 %, and general outcomes in 10.5 %. MCID reference was found only in 4 (14.8 %) cases.
conclusionsThe newly developed archive represents a useful tool to optimize the use of PROMs in the evaluation of treatments in BC patients, promoting a patient-centered approach both in clinical research and practice.
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.