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 accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O'Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 · Cited by 24,013
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · cited 1×
“Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [29].”
MethodGRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Sultan, S., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., Alonso-Coello, P., Atkins, D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Montori, V., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004 · Cited by 1,336
Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010 · Cited by 1,313
Informal Caregiving and Its Impact on Health: A Reappraisal From Population-Based Studies
Roth, D. L., Fredman, L., & Haley, W. E. (2015) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnu177 · Cited by 965
Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations
Kirkham, J. J., Davis, K., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Tunis, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2017) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447 · Cited by 792
A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery
Dodd, S., Clarke, M., Becker, L., Mavergames, C., Fish, R., & Williamson, P. R. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020 · Cited by 625 · cited 7×
“JMIR Res Protoc 2023 | vol. 12 | e49774 | p. 4https://www.researchprotocols.org/2023/1/e49774 (page number not for citation purposes) XSL•FO RenderX The COMET taxonomy was used as an external framework to support the development of analytical themes and facilitate the combination of the results of both the quantitativ…”
InfluentialGetting the methods right--the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research
Gabriel, S. E., & Normand, S.-L. T. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1207437 · Cited by 252
A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health
Hughes, K. L., Clarke, M., & Williamson, P. R. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.029 · Cited by 125
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 2022, National Cancer Control Programmes: Policies and Managerial Guidelines, 2nd Edition
- 10.1089/jpm.2008.9992 · DOI
- 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.04.001 · DOI
- 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-4-306 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.327.7408.195 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0161407 · DOI
- Tugwell, P, 1993, J Rheumatol, 20, 528
- 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s12904-016-0181-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.2016.17163 · DOI
- 10.1186/1472-684X-7-13 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pec.2017.05.012 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0172937 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10433-016-0370-7 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039154 · DOI
- 10.1080/13611260500069947 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.010 · DOI
- 10.1177/0269216319858237 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-007-0348-2 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12904-018-0375-4 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12875-018-0831-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s40900-016-0039-6 · DOI
- 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312117 · DOI
- 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
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2023-09-01
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- e49774
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10504625
- OpenAlex
- W4385710400
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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