SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Evaluating patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy for liver cancer: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the reporting characteristics and quality of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy for liver cancer. Methods: We systematically searched six electronic databases for relevant RCTs published in English or Chinese from inception to April 17, 2025. The reporting quality of PROs was assessed using the CONSORT-PRO extension and the CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Results: We included 64 RCTs with 8,494 participants. Of these, 14 studies were confirmatory studies, 31 studies were exploratory studies and 19 studies were categorized as "Other" studies. 23.4% (15/64) of these RCTs reported PROs as the primary outcome. Twenty-seven patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) about 17 relevant domains were observed in these studies. The domain with the highest reporting frequency was quality of life (53/64). Forty trials utilized a single PROM, while 24 trials employed multiple PROMs. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most often used PROM (25/53). Nineteen trials employed single-domain symptoms or specific functioning PROMs. Eight symptomatic adverse events were reported in less than 30% of studies. The mean score of the CONSORT-PRO adherence was 7.5 (3-14) for confirmatory studies, 5.8 (4-9) for exploratory studies and 6.0 (3-9) for other studies. The adherence to CONSORT 2010 was poor among the included trials. Only 3 trials achieved good reporting quality. Conclusion: Among the 64 included RCTs, the reporting of specific symptoms and the application of specific PROMs related to targeted and/or immunotherapy were poor. Meanwhile, the integration of PROs with clinical endpoints was suboptimal, and PRO data were seldom used to guide nursing practice. More importantly, the overall adherence to CONSORT-PRO among the included studies was low. Although confirmatory studies demonstrated higher scores than exploratory studies and other types of studies, there was considerable variation within this category. Future studies should prioritize the use of validated, standard disease-specific tools and strengthen the evaluation of treatment-related adverse events. Furthermore, we advocate establishing a collaborative framework that integrates medical, nursing, and patient perspectives. Future studies, particularly confirmatory studies and nursing intervention or supportive care studies, strictly adhere to the CONSORT-PRO guideline.
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.