PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important.
To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies.
A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022).
Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients\' and informal caregivers\' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion.
We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use.
Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders\' priorities.
To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies.
A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022).
Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients\' and informal caregivers\' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion.
We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use.
Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders\' priorities.
摘要：
■评估晚期癌症患者预后影响的研究在他们测量的结果方面有所不同，关于哪些结果最重要缺乏共识。
■为了确定先前在晚期癌症患者的预后研究中报道的结果，作为构建预后影响研究核心结果集的第一步。
■进行了系统评价，并分析了两个子集：一个定性和一个定量。（PROSPEROID：CRD42022320117；29/03/2022）。
■从开始到2022年9月搜索了六个数据库。我们提取的数据描述了（1）用于衡量预后影响的结果，以及（2）患者和非正式护理人员对晚期癌症预后的经验和看法。我们使用有效性试验中的核心结果衡量标准(COMET)倡议分类法对结果进行分类，以及叙述性描述。我们评估了检索到的研究质量，但质量不是排除的基础。
■我们确定了42项符合条件的研究：32项定量研究，6定性，4混合方法。我们提取了70个晚期癌症预后的结果，并将其分为12个领域：（1）生存;（2）精神病结果;（3）一般结果;（4）精神/宗教/生存功能/健康，(5)情绪功能/健康;(6)认知功能;(7)社会功能;(8)整体生活质量;(9)提供护理;(10)感知的健康状况;(11)个人情况;和(12)医院/临终关怀使用。
■研究中的结果报告和测量差异显著。在预后研究中采用标准化的结果报告方法是必要的，以加强数据综合。改善临床实践，更好地与利益相关者的优先事项保持一致。
■为了确定先前在晚期癌症患者的预后研究中报道的结果，作为构建预后影响研究核心结果集的第一步。
■进行了系统评价，并分析了两个子集：一个定性和一个定量。（PROSPEROID：CRD42022320117；29/03/2022）。
■从开始到2022年9月搜索了六个数据库。我们提取的数据描述了（1）用于衡量预后影响的结果，以及（2）患者和非正式护理人员对晚期癌症预后的经验和看法。我们使用有效性试验中的核心结果衡量标准(COMET)倡议分类法对结果进行分类，以及叙述性描述。我们评估了检索到的研究质量，但质量不是排除的基础。
■我们确定了42项符合条件的研究：32项定量研究，6定性，4混合方法。我们提取了70个晚期癌症预后的结果，并将其分为12个领域：（1）生存;（2）精神病结果;（3）一般结果;（4）精神/宗教/生存功能/健康，(5)情绪功能/健康;(6)认知功能;(7)社会功能;(8)整体生活质量;(9)提供护理;(10)感知的健康状况;(11)个人情况;和(12)医院/临终关怀使用。
■研究中的结果报告和测量差异显著。在预后研究中采用标准化的结果报告方法是必要的，以加强数据综合。改善临床实践，更好地与利益相关者的优先事项保持一致。
