Cited by 3Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesDelphi Technique in ResearchPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

Open access
Spooner, Caitlin, Vivat, Bella, White, Nicola, Stone, Patrick·2023·JMIR Research Protocols

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. Objective: This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. Methods: We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set. Results: Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024. Conclusions: This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders. Trial Registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49774

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 · 10.2196/49774

Cites

12 of 12 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 2022, National Cancer Control Programmes: Policies and Managerial Guidelines, 2nd Edition
  2. 10.1089/jpm.2008.9992 · DOI
  3. 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.04.001 · DOI
  4. 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-4-306 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/bmj.327.7408.195 · DOI
  6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161407 · DOI
  7. Tugwell, P, 1993, J Rheumatol, 20, 528
  8. 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1186/s12904-016-0181-9 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1001/jama.2016.17163 · DOI
  11. 10.1186/1472-684X-7-13 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.pec.2017.05.012 · DOI
  13. 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172937 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s10433-016-0370-7 · DOI
  16. 10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x · DOI
  17. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039154 · DOI
  18. 10.1080/13611260500069947 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.010 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/0269216319858237 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s00520-007-0348-2 · DOI
  23. 10.1186/s12904-018-0375-4 · DOI
  24. 10.1186/s12875-018-0831-5 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1186/s40900-016-0039-6 · DOI
  28. 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312117 · DOI
  29. 10.1371/journal.pone.0201378 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Spooner, C., Vivat, B., White, N., & Stone, P.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Spooner, Caitlin
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2023-09-01
Volume
12
Pages
e49774
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385710400
Cited by
3
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Marie Curie (MCCCFPO-16-U, MCCC-FCO-11-U, MCCC‐FCH‐18‐U)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P000592/1, ES/P000592)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
core outcome set, cancer palliative care, advanced cancer, outcome standardization, prognostic algorithm, patient and caregiver perspectives, Delphi consensus, COMET Initiative, prognosis communication, patient-reported outcomes, informal caregivers, clinicians' perspectives, outcome prioritization, clinical trial design, end-of-life care, quality of life, symptom burden

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