ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Patient-reported symptoms in the detection of head and neck cancer recurrence: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) after treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) relies on the signs and symptoms of recurrence being detectable by patients. We examine the evidence for patient-reported symptoms as an indicator of recurrence. Methods: A search was conducted via OvidMEDLINE and Embase (2010 to January 2024) plus sources of grey literature for studies which describe patient-reported symptoms and recurrent disease. Findings are reported as per PRISMA guidelines. Results: Twenty studies were included which were highly heterogenous. The median sensitivity of patient-reported symptoms to detect recurrence is 47.3%. Median specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) were 79.3%, 9.3% and 98.0% respectively. New symptoms were generally reported at routine follow-up rather than expedited appointments. Conclusion: The high specificity and NPV of patient-reported symptoms means recurrence is unlikely in the absence of symptoms. Patient education and collection of prospective data through digital health technologies may increase the effectiveness of PIFU.
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.