ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
A Comprehensive Assessment of Cancer Patient Performance Status Documentation in a Large, Multicentre Hospital System.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe performance status (PS) is an indicator of a cancer patient's ability to perform everyday activities and plays a key role in oncology. Research suggests that the documentation of PS scores in electronic health records (EHR) is deficient.
methodsWe analysed PS score documentation (Karnofsky or ECOG/Zubrod/WHO) in the hospital, consultation, and multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) records of patients newly referred for a cancer at a large, public, multisite hospital system, between 1 January 2019 and 1 June 2021. We developed a regular expression (RegEx) to automatically identify PS in documents and assessed what patient and hospital characteristics were associated with PS documentation.
resultsOur RegEx achieved accuracy, and weighted- and macro-average F1 score, > 0.95 for all document types. We included 68,479 patients. 35% had a documented PS between -90 and +365 days of their first ICD-10 cancer code. 18% of MDT reports contained a PS score. In multivariate analysis, without accounting for metastatic status at diagnosis, odds ratios (ORs) for PS documentation in patient files varied by cancer type, from 0.47 (95% confidence interval: [0.42; 0.52]) for genitourinary to 3.30 [3.00; 3.61] for lung cancer, and hospital, from 0.27 [0.23; 0.33] to 3.38 [3.14; 3.63]. Male patients were more likely to have a documented PS (OR = 1.08 [1.04; 1.13]), as well as older patients. The number of each type of document was positively correlated with the presence of a score. When adding metastatic status at diagnosis, the OR for metastatic status was large (3.29 [3.13; 3.46]), but associations with other covariates were not noticeably affected. Documented PS close to diagnosis was associated with poorer 1-year survival (25% of patients with PS died within 1 year, vs 12% without PS).
conclusionPS score documentation was variable and generally low. Improved documentation is required if EHRs are to be used as a source of real-world data.
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.