Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39499376›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review.

Emily N Larsen, Claire M Rickard, Nicole Marsh, Mary Fenn, Rebecca S Paterson, Amanda J Ullman, Raymond J Chan, Vineet Chopra, Doreen Tapsall, Amanda Corley and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Performance of EQ5D-5L and AHPEQS for measuring outcomes and experiences of patients with peripherally inserted central catheters: a secondary analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Emily N LarsenSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. e.larsen@griffith.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-8484
Claire M RickardSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6341-7415
Nicole MarshSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-1304
Mary FennSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8199-3600
Rebecca S PatersonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1557-9356
Amanda J UllmanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8860-5319
Raymond J ChanCancer Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-7046
Vineet ChopraSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8670-9376
Doreen TapsallDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7340-7969
Amanda CorleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-4077
Nicole GavinNursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cancer Care ServicesBuilding 34, Cnr. Bowen Bridge Rd and Butterfield St, Herston, Queensland, 4029, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0828-9852
Brighid ScanlonNursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cancer Care ServicesBuilding 34, Cnr. Bowen Bridge Rd and Butterfield St, Herston, Queensland, 4029, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9190-8721
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6562-711X

Funding

Griffith University Health Group (Queensland, Australia) 2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients receiving treatment for solid tumours and haematological malignancies, among other acute and chronic health conditions, are highly dependent upon central venous access devices (CVADs) for administering chemotherapy and other complex therapies; thus, CVADs can meaningfully impact their health outcomes and experiences. This systematic review aimed to identify and critique patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) instruments related to CVADs.

methodsA systematic review was undertaken, commencing with an electronic search of health databases (April 2022). Studies were eligible if they used a self-reporting instrument (questionnaire) to quantitatively measure patient-reported outcomes and experiences related to CVADs (English only). Using a piloted data-extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Data were synthesised narratively.

resultsThe search yielded 875 titles, of which 41 met the inclusion and no exclusion criteria. Of these, 31 reported results of purpose-built questionnaires; a further six reported results of generic measures used for CVADs; four included both purpose-built and generic measures. Overall study quality was low; only two studies evaluated both content validity and internal consistency. In total, 155 unique PROM items (across 27 studies) were extracted which encompassed five domains (e.g., 'Instrumental activities of daily living'; 'Pain and discomfort'). Similarly, 184 unique PREMs (from 31 studies) included 13 domains (e.g., 'Shared decision-making'; 'Education').

conclusionIncreasingly, research and quality improvement studies about CVADs are incorporating PROM and PREM. These measures are largely purpose-built, however, and their validity and reliability have not been sufficiently established for use. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospectively submitted to the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) 05 July 2020.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCatheterization, Central VenousCentral Venous CathetersHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCentral venous access devicePatient reported experience measuresPatient reported outcomes measuresQuality of lifeSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.