Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium

Open access
Coens, Corneel, Pe, Madeline, Dueck, Amylou C, Sloan, Jeff, Basch, Ethan, Calvert, Melanie, Campbell, Alicyn, Cleeland, Charles, Cocks, Kim, Collette, Laurence, Devlin, Nancy, Dorme, Lien, Flechtner, Hans-Henning, Gotay, Carolyn, Griebsch, Ingolf, Groenvold, Mogens, King, Madeleine, Kluetz, Paul G, Koller, Michael, Malone, Daniel C, Martinelli, Francesca, Mitchell, Sandra A, Musoro, Jammbe Z, O'Connor, Daniel, Oliver, Kathy, Piault-Louis, Elisabeth, Piccart, Martine, Quinten, Chantal, Reijneveld, Jaap C, Schürmann, Christoph, Smith, Ashley Wilder, Soltys, Katherine M, Taphoorn, Martin J B, Velikova, Galina, Bottomley, Andrew·2020·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30790-9

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Devlin, N., Dorme, L., Flechtner, H.-H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., Malone, D. C., Martinelli, F., Mitchell, S. A., Musoro, J. Z., O'Connor, D., Oliver, K., Piault-Louis, E., Piccart, M., Quinten, C., Reijneveld, J. C., Schürmann, C., Smith, A. W., Soltys, K. M., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Velikova, G., & Bottomley, A.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
e83-e96
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3003402209
Cited by
323
References
51
FWCI
30.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30790-9
The paper
Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., Campbell, A., Cleeland, C., Cocks, K., Collette, L., Devlin, N., Dorme, L., Flechtner, H.-H., Gotay, C., Griebsch, I., Groenvold, M., King, M., Kluetz, P. G., Koller, M., . . . Bottomley, A. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30790-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.