↓ Skip to main content

Methodological issues in designing and reporting health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials: the challenge of brain cancer studies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Methodological issues in designing and reporting health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials: the challenge of brain cancer studies
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11060-012-0819-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Efficace, Martin Taphoorn

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are now important outcome measures in cancer clinical trials. A number of potentially less toxic drugs are available, and newer treatments can potentially offer cancer patients the possibility to be treated with less aggressive approaches, making PROs more critical in evaluating treatment effectiveness. However, assessing PROs in clinical trials requires careful consideration of a number of methodological issues. Robust methodology and accurate reporting of results are crucial to provide the scientific community and health care providers with a transparent message about the impact of a given drug or a new medical approach on patients' health status. This paper provides basic guidance on methodological issues to be addressed when designing and reporting HRQOL in clinical trials and presents examples of relevant brain cancer studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 4 13%