Home › Research › End-of-life care
Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer
Seow H, Tanuseputro P, Barbera L, Earle C, Guthrie D, Isenberg S, Juergens R, Myers J et al.. JAMA network open, 2020-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results A total of 255 494 patients diagnosed with cancer were identified (135 699 [53.1%] female; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]). After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home.
Key findings
- Results A total of 255 494 patients diagnosed with cancer were identified (135 699 [53.1%] female; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]).
- After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home.
Study details
- Participants494
- Effect size53.1%; 20.1%; 12.5%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA network open) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 494 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32236529) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Seow, H., Tanuseputro, P., Barbera, L., Earle, C., Guthrie, D., Isenberg, S., et al. (2020). Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer. JAMA network open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1768
Vancouver
Seow H, Tanuseputro P, Barbera L, Earle C, Guthrie D, Isenberg S, et al. Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer. JAMA network open. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1768. PMID: 32236529.
BibTeX
@article{seow2020-32236529,
author = {Seow, H. and Tanuseputro, P. and Barbera, L. and Earle, C. and Guthrie, D. and Isenberg, S. and Juergens, R. and Myers, J. and others},
title = {{Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer}},
journal = {JAMA network open},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1768},
pmid = {32236529},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1768}
}
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.