ReviewBMC veterinary research2025
A rapid state-of the-art review of client-reported outcomes measures used to assess dogs' clinical signs and quality of life during chemotherapy.
Review in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and Testing of an Owner-Reported Outcome Measure of Clinical Signs and Quality of Life in Dogs Treated With Chemotherapy.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality of life is an essential component of decision-making in veterinary oncology. Poor management of adverse events during chemotherapy can impair dogs' quality of life and be life-threatening. Consequently, client-reported outcome measures (CROMs) are being proposed to help assess both clinical signs and quality of life. The purpose of this rapid review was to: (1) identify existing CROMs that have been used to assess dogs' clinical signs and quality of life during chemotherapy; and (2) evaluate their methodological development to inform adaptation or development of a CROM for use in routine clinical practice, including remote monitoring. Databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PUBMED/MEDLINE) were searched for CROMs (questionnaires) completed by a non-expert family member about their companion dog. CROM content (domains measured) and scale quality were appraised.
resultsTen CROMs were identified and three were variations of the same tool. Content of the CROMs varied considerably (range 3-17 domains) with gastrointestinal being the most frequently measured clinical sign cluster (9/10 studies), followed by mobility/ambulatory activity (7/10) and global quality of life (6/10). No CROMs adhered to quality standards for the development of questionnaires and most failed to include qualitative design methods and basic psychometric assessment to ensure reliability and validity (such as internal consistency, test-retest reliability or factor analysis).
conclusionThe validity and reliability of existing chemotherapy CROMs for dogs remains under-tested. Although CROMs combined with remote digital monitoring have the potential to enhance patient care, as has been demonstrated with physician-based oncology, there is a need to apply quality standards to ensure optimal validation. Interdisciplinary collaborations would likely improve CROM quality and clinical utility thereby allowing veterinary healthcare professionals to better support their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.