Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39552909›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2024

Patient-reported outcomes following esophagectomy.

Alicia M Bonanno, Felix G Fernandez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Alicia M BonannoDepartment of Surgery, Section of General Thoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7300-2475
Felix G FernandezDepartment of Surgery, Section of General Thoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact on quality of life (QoL) following esophagectomy is well reported in many studies that have analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The morbidity surrounding esophagectomy mainly lies within the significant lifestyle changes that can be permanent in some patients. Research efforts in cancer treatments primarily focus on measurements of survival and major morbidity to establish the best therapy that provides the longest survival, but they do not consider the global well-being of the patient. PROs assist in this measurement of QoL and health that is obtained from the patient or caregiver. These instruments are of minimal burden and cost to the patient and are generally utilized before each clinic visit which can help quantify symptoms and improve communication between patients and their surgeons. PROs can also be successfully integrated into the electronic medical records for a standardized approach to collection of data. Review of PRO studies have demonstrated a consensus of an overall decrease in QoL immediately following esophagectomy, but there is a discordance in long-term analyses regarding health-related QoL (HRQoL) scores that return to baseline. This review focuses on methods of gathering and utilizing PRO data, as well as reviewing the current literature regarding QoL research in those undergoing esophagectomy for both short-term and long-term periods.

Indexed as

esophageal canceresophagectomyhealth-related quality of life (HRQoL)Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Identifiers

PMID39552909
PMCPMC11565296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.