Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 3, 2026

Generation of Comprehensive Thoracic Oncology Database - Tool for Translational Research
Published on: January 22, 2011
Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY
Nina Deliu1, Francesco Cottone1, Gary S Collins2
1Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Introduction:
While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations.
Methods And Analysis:
An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided.
Ethics And Dissemination:
Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42018099160.
More Related Videos
05:16Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
06:55An Unpredictable Chronic Mild Stress Protocol for Instigating Depressive Symptoms, Behavioral Changes and Negative Health Outcomes in Rodents
Published on: December 2, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Data Reporting and Recording
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention I
The health belief model (HBM) attempts to predict health-related behavior in specific belief patterns. According to the HBM, a person's...
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...