English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recently, many cancer drugs have been approved by regulatory agencies based on single-arm studies, where analysis of quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is not a direct comparison with the standard, but the simple description of changes versus baseline and trends over time. This analysis can be potentially biased by missing data: QoL level could be overestimated, and symptoms underestimated. Caution is needed to avoid that a methodologically weak evidence in PROs and QoL data is overrated, if not for the drug approval, for the interpretation of data by scientific community and the communication with patients. PROs experts should be involved in planning, conduction, and interpretation of analyses.

The Value of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Single-Arm Cancer Trials