A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Survey of modalities of toxicity assessment and reporting in noncomparative prospective studies of chemotherapy in breast cancer. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: To review how toxicity, a main end point of phase II studies, is assessed and reported in published phase II chemotherapy trials in breast cancer.

Methods: A survey was performed by hand-searching studies published in seven distinguished journals between 1995 and 1999. All selected articles were independently evaluated by two investigators using an ad hoc study report form. Descriptive statistics, contingency tables, and the chi(2) test were applied.

Results: Overall, 122 articles were found; 65.6% lacked a statistical study design. Planned modalities for assessment of toxicity were inadequately reported in 20.5% of the studies. The scheduling of assessment of hematologic toxicity varied greatly. Toxicity was predominantly summarized per patient (69.7%). Although overall the World Health Organization scale was adopted more frequently (45.9%), the Common Toxicity Criteria (in different versions) were used more frequently in studies published in journals with a high impact factor (P =.001), in more recently initiated studies (P =.03), in sponsored studies (P =.0006), and in studies with an identifiable statistical design (P =.006).

Conclusion: The wide diversity in modalities of toxicity assessment and reporting observed in this study suggests that the reliability of the body of published data on the toxicity of chemotherapy in breast cancer may be questionable. Current standards should be revised and harmonized to improve the reliability of such data. A checklist is proposed to help editorial evaluation of assessment and reporting of toxicity in phase II studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.52DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

assessment reporting
12
toxicity
9
studies
9
modalities toxicity
8
toxicity assessment
8
chemotherapy breast
8
breast cancer
8
phase studies
8
studies published
8
assessment
5

Similar Publications