MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Improving quality of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).

2020· article· en· W4238629480 on OpenAlexaffabout
Di Jiang, Bryan Wong, Joaquim Bellmunt, Thomas Powles, Alicia K. Morgans, David J. Vaughn, Srikala S. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

467 Background: HRQOL data are increasingly used to guide patient care and health policy. However, their utility can be compromised by inadequate quality of HRQOL reporting (QHR). We aimed to systematically evaluate QHR in phase III RCTs of mUC. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review following PRISMA guidelines identified published manuscripts of phase III RCTs of mUC in English between 1985 - 2019. Supplementary material, references and companion publications were reviewed. QHR was quantified using: 1) 2013 CONSORT-PRO extension (CPE), and 2) 2003 Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials (MSC). Both scores range from 0-11, with higher scores indicating higher QHR. QHR is “probably robust” if MSC score is ≥8 and all 3 mandatory items (baseline compliance, missing data, and psychometric properties) are reported; “limited” if MSC score is 5-7; and “very limited” if MSC score is ≤4. Results: HRQOL data was collected in 7/21 (33%) mUC phase III RCTs. All reported HRQOL data as secondary/exploratory endpoints. Generic instruments included EORTC QLQ-C30 alone (n=3) or combined with EQ-5D (n=2)/McGill pain questionnaire (n=1). Disease-specific FACT-Bl was used in 1 RCT. Both checklists showed strong correlation (Spearman coefficient 0.94, p=0.001). QHR was often limited, however has improved in recent years (Table). No RCT stated HRQOL-specific hypotheses. Only 1 reported instrument validity and mode of administration. Few provided domain specific results (n=2) and statistical methods for handling missing data (n=3). Implications for clinical practice were only discussed in 3 RCTs. Conclusions: QHR has improved over time however many critical methodological deficiencies remain in mUC phase III RCTs. The use of standard checklists are encouraged to further enhance QHR and promote high quality HRQOL research. [Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.434
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.602
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4340.602
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.014
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.417
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→