MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care

2024· review· en· W4401542080 on OpenAlexafffund
Amaris Balitsky, Daniel Rayner, Joanne Britto, Anath C. Lionel, Lydia Ginsberg, Wanjae Cho, Ann Mary Wilfred, Huda Sardar, Nathan Cantor, Hira Mian, Mark N. Levine, Gordon H Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski Hospital
FundersHamilton Health SciencesPfizer
KeywordsPromMedicineMEDLINECINAHLRandomized controlled trialData extractionQuality of life (healthcare)GuidelinePhysical therapyFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, to provide a patient-centered perspective. Objective: To understand the association of PROM integration into cancer care with patient-related, therapy-related, and health care utilization outcomes. Data Sources: Searches included MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations; Embase databases (OvidSP); PsychINFO; CENTRAL; and CINAHL from January 1, 2012 to September 26, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult patients (ages 18 years and older) with active cancer receiving anticancer therapy using a PROM as an intervention. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of review authors, using prepiloted forms, independently extracted trial characteristics, disease characteristics, and intervention details. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, and hospital utilization outcomes. Results: From 1996 to 2022, 45 RCTs including 13 661 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients. The addition of a PROM likely reduced the risk of overall mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; moderate certainty), improved HRQoL (range 0-100) at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD], 2.45; 95% CI, 0.42-4.48; moderate certainty). Improvements of HRQoL at 24 weeks were not significant (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, -1.21 to 4.96; low certainty). There was no association between the addition of a PROM and HRQoL at 48 weeks. The addition of a PROM was not associated with reduced ED visits (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02; low certainty) or hospital admissions (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; low certainty). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the integration of PROMs into cancer care may improve overall survival and quality of life.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.351
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.351
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207