ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Unraveling assumptions about clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome data : A qualitative study on perspectives of different interest groups.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology research lacks a shared understanding of clinical relevance among interest groups. Terms like minimal important differences and clinically meaningful change aim to aid interpretation but remain inconsistently conceptualized. This study explores interest-holders' perspectives to support setting-specific definitions of clinical relevance in PRO research.
methodsAn online survey was distributed via international networks to multi-professional interest-holders. Responses to an open-ended question regarding participants' understanding of clinical relevance were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns within the quotes.
resultsThe survey included 92 participants: clinical practitioners (38.5%), academic researchers (47.3%), industry researchers (8.8%), and patients/patient representatives (rep.) (5.5%). Five clusters emerged reflecting facets of clinical relevance: (a) patient value (e.g., impact on well-being), (b) practical implications (e.g., treatment changes), (c) external criteria (e.g., physiological changes), (d) statistical approaches (e.g., 10% difference), and (e) proxy value (e.g., physician's perspective). Practitioners primarily focused on patient value (55.6%), while academic researchers showed a similar distribution but with greater variance across clusters. In contrast, industry researchers more frequently emphasized external criteria (20.0%) and proxy value (20.0%) compared to other groups. Patient value and statistical approaches were not mentioned by the same participants, nor were external criteria and practical implications.
conclusionConceptual understanding of clinical relevance varies by professional background, highlighting its multifaceted nature. These findings, identifying distinct conceptual clusters across interest groups, provide a foundation for developing harmonized, context-specific definitions of clinical relevance in PRO research.
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.