Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Amylou C. Dueck; Tito R. Mendoza; Sandra A. Mitchell; Bryce B. Reeve; Kathleen M. Castro; Lauren J. Rogak; Thomas M. Atkinson; Antonia V. Bennett; Andrea Denicoff; Ann M. O’Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B. Clauser; Donna Bryant; James D. Bearden; Theresa A. Gillis; Jay K. Harness; Robert D. Siegel; Diane Β. Paul; Charles S. Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A. Sloan; Amy P. Abernethy; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Lori M. Minasian; Ethan Basch

doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Abstract

Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Dueck et al. (2015) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d89c6518b0ca7f91d1876d https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Ask about this paper

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Ask about this paper

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading