A Core Outcome Set to evaluate the impact of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: an international consensus study
Medlock, C.; Vivat, B.; White, N.; Rabben, J.; Stone, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundImplementing a prognostic model in clinical practice requires assessing not just its accuracy but also how it may impact patient and healthcare outcomes. Evaluating these impacts requires clinical trials that are carefully designed to select, collect, and report key outcomes. However, there is currently no consensus on which outcomes are key to evaluating the impact of prognostication. Core Outcome Sets can standardise outcome selection, collection, and reporting, and thereby improve the comparability of studies. Our study aimed to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for evaluating the impact of prognostication on people living with advanced cancer. MethodsFollowing the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiatives recommended methodology, we first conducted a systematic review of prognostic studies and in-depth interviews with patients, informal caregivers, and clinicians. Drawing on these findings, we produced a comprehensive list of potential outcomes, which we refined and prioritised through a two-round modified Delphi survey with an international expert panel. An online consensus meeting finalised the preliminary Core Outcome Set. ResultsThe systematic review identified 70 outcomes, and the interviews contributed another 16. Consolidation produced 67 outcomes for review in the Delphi survey. A total of 49 experts from 14 countries; participated in the Delphi survey, with 31 (63%) completing both rounds. After two rounds, 34 outcomes were rated as critically important. These were discussed further in the consensus meeting, attended by 12 participants, who reached agreement on 9 core outcomes spanning five domains: physiological/clinical outcomes, global quality of life, care delivery, perceived health status, and personal circumstances. ConclusionsThis preliminary Core Outcome Set offers a standardised approach for selecting, collecting, and reporting outcomes in prognostic impact studies in advanced cancer, which could enhance the comparability of future prognostic impact studies, and thereby potentially improve clinical practice and patient care outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Palliative care in the treatment of women with breast cancer: a scoping review protocol 93%
- Family physicians supporting patients with palliative care needs within the Patient Medical Home in the community: An Appreciative Inquiry qualitative study 93%
- Surgical Resection, Radiotherapy, And Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Treatment of Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining and measuring unmet palliative care needs among people with life-limiting illness: a scoping review of international evidence 93%
- Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews 92%
- Understanding and addressing challenges for Advance Care Planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 90%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 90%
- The performance of national COVID-19 ‘Symptom Checkers’: A comparative case simulation study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire 92%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 90%
- “We tend to get pad happy” : a qualitative study of health practitioners’ perspectives on continence care for older people in hospital 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.