Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8888155›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment1996

Evaluation of quality of life for diverse patient populations.

K R Yabroff, B P Linas, K Schulman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K R YabroffClinical Economics Research Unit, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC 20007, USA.
B P Linas
K Schulman

Funding

CARE, COSTS AND OUTCOMES OF LOCAL BREAST CANCERR01HS008395 · AHRQ · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 1994 to 1999
–
AHRQ HHS R01 HS08395
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality of life is used increasingly as a primary and secondary endpoint of clinical investigations of new therapies. Quality of life information may be especially useful for the assessment of cancer treatments, where increases in survival may be accompanied by detrimental side effects. The recognition of the importance of quality of life has led to the recent proliferation of cancer specific quality of life instruments. As more is understood about the heterogeneity of patient populations, however, we must assess how culturally defined factors may impact patient quality of life and its assessment. Quality of life instruments are diverse, ranging from those focusing on objective measures of functionality to those assessing subjective measures of patient preferences for their current health state. These instruments have been developed for use in the general population and for disease-specific populations. Assessment of the appropriateness of potential quality of life instruments in specific clinical settings, in addition to understanding the cultural diversity of the clinical population being studied, will guide the researcher in the choice of an appropriate quality of life instrument for cancer clinical trials.

Indexed as

Cultural DiversityQuality of LifeClinical Trials as TopicEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID8888155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.