SynthesisPharmacoEconomics - open2025
Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Toward a validated European instrument to measure the socioeconomic impact of cancer.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of instruments have been developed to measure the socioeconomic impact (SEI) of cancer. A standardized comparison of the quality and content validity of these instruments is lacking. This study aimed to (1) conduct a standardized assessment of the quality of SEI instruments and (2) assess the content validity of these instruments using the conceptual framework developed by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) for SEI analysis.
methodWe identified articles measuring the SEI of cancer with ad hoc and/or validated instruments from an existing database. These articles were the initial pearls in a systematic review of published articles that applied and validated these instruments using the pearl-growing search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was utilized to provide quantitative assessment and comparison of the quality of identified instruments. To examine content validity, we allocated each instrument's items against the themes and sub-themes of the established conceptual framework for SEI analysis.
resultsWe identified and investigated 21 validation studies using nine original instruments. The number of articles varied significantly among the identified instruments. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument was the most frequently used, validated in ten different settings, whereas some newer instruments have not been applied yet. This variation resulted in significant differences in EMPRO overall scores among these instruments. Regarding content validity, we found that not all themes of the OECI framework were covered by the content of the instruments.
conclusionThe quality and the application of instruments measuring the SEI of cancer varied significantly. The content of the instruments seems not to cover all related themes of the applied OECI framework in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm the quality and content validity of the instruments measuring the SEI of cancer.
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.