ArticlePsycho-oncology2025
Establishing the Ecological Validity of Cognitive Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maximizing the impact of real-world evidence on cancer treatment: what do we need to achieve it?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Review
- Establishing the Ecological Validity of Cognitive Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine which cognitive patient reported outcome measure (PROM) best represents self-reported cognitive functioning in real-world environments among breast cancer survivors (BCS) as measured by ecological momentary assessments (EMA), and to compare their ability to predict future everyday functioning.
methodsOne-hundred twenty-four BCS (ages 24-88) completed self-report measures of cognitive functioning (FACT-Cog PCI, PROMIS Cog, CFQ, EORTC-CF) and everyday functioning (SDI, FACT-G Functional Well-being subscale) at baseline (Time 1) and at 9 weeks follow up (Time 2). Between assessments, EMA protocols (including one item to assess cancer-related cognitive symptoms) were administered every other day for 8 weeks. Person-specific means and standard deviations were calculated for EMA data. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to model cognitive PROM predictors of person-specific averages and variability in EMAs, SDI, and FACT-G functional well-being, and model parameters (R
resultsFollow-up FACT-Cog PCI most accurately predicted both the average (ΔR
conclusionsThese findings support the ecological validity of cognitive PROMs in BCS and indicate that both FACT-Cog PCI and PROMIS Cog effectively capture real-world cognitive symptoms and predict future everyday functioning, including social function and well-being.
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.