[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"patient-reported-outcomes\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:patient-reported-outcomes":25},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,45,83],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":23,"conditions":24,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":33,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":34,"startDateStruct":37,"completionDateStruct":39,"leadSponsor":41,"locationsCount":44},"100523843","patient-reported-outcome-and-patient-reported-experience-after-status-epilepticus-100523843",false,"NCT06100978","Patient-reported Outcome and Patient-reported Experience After Status Epilepticus","Patient-reported Outcomes in Status Epilepticus Requiring Intensive Care Unit Management. A Multicenter Longitudinal Cohort Study","POSEIDON2","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults 18 years old or older\n* Patients previously included in the ICTAL registry (Status Epilepticus cohort NCT03457831)\n* Survivors after ICU management for Status Epilepticus More than 3 months and less than 5 years after ICU discharge\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Legal guardianship\n* Opposition to participate\n* Unread and unwritten French language\n* Patient not affiliated to a Social Security system","ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},145,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","Status epilepticus (SE) is a common life-threatening neurological emergency in which prolonged or multiple closely spaced seizures can result in long-term impairments. SE remains associated with considerable mortality and morbidity, with little progress over the last three decades. The proportion of patients who die in the hospital is about 20% overall and 40% in patients with refractory SE. Morbidity is more difficult to evaluate, as adverse effects of SE are often difficult to differentiate from those attributed to the cause of SE. Our experience suggests that nearly 50% of patients may experience long-term functional impairments. The precise description of the consequences of these functional impairments and their impact on quality of life after SE requiring intensive care management has been little studied. Indeed, if cognitive, physical and mental impairments are now identified in the populations of patients who required intensive care under the term postresuscitation syndrome (PICS), neuronal lesions consecutive to the SE itselfor to its cause could be responsible for these different functional alterations.\n\nThus, the following have been described: (i) cognitive disorders in the areas of attention, executive functions and verbal fluency, visual and working memory disorders, but also spatio-temporal disorders; (ii) physical disorders such as the so-called post-resuscitation polyneuromyopathy; and (iii) mental disorders such as anxiety disorders, depressive states or those related to post-traumatic stress.\n\nAssessment and characterization of patient-reported outcomes is essential to complement the holistic assessment of clinically relevant outcomes from the patient's perspective. The POSEIDON study was a cross-sectional collection of PROs and HR-QOL components, and associated with patient functional outcomes, in those who required ICU management for status epilepticus. We propose here to continue the description of potential alterations after a subsequent ME, namely a longitudinal study (POSEIDON 2) which will also include the evaluation of patient-reported experience (PREMS) and the measurement of family burden.",[25,26,27,28,29,30,31],"Patient Reported Outcomes","Patient Satisfaction","Long Term Outcomes","Status Epilepticus","Intensive Care Unit","Burden","Relatives","RECRUITING","2024-11-04",{"date":35,"type":36},"2024-11-05","ACTUAL",{"date":38,"type":36},"2024-05-25",{"date":40,"type":21},"2026-07",{"name":42,"class":43},"Versailles Hospital","OTHER",13,{"id":46,"slug":47,"hasResults":11,"nctId":48,"briefTitle":49,"officialTitle":50,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":51,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":52,"minAge":18,"maxAge":53,"enrollmentInfo":54,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":56,"phases":57,"briefSummary":59,"conditions":60,"keywords":67,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":73,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":74,"startDateStruct":76,"completionDateStruct":78,"leadSponsor":80,"locationsCount":82},"100503893","correlation-of-timing-of-pegfilgrastim-administration-and-pibp-100503893","NCT05841186","Correlation of Timing of Pegfilgrastim Administration and PIBP.","Correlation of Timing of Pegfilgrastim Administration and PIBP(Pegfilgrastim-induced Bone Pain)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age greater than or equal to 18 years and less than or equal to 70 years.\n2. Pathologically or histologically confirmed diagnosis of primary breast cancer.\n3. Able to receive the chemotherapy regimen as scheduled.\n4. Able to understand Chinese and fill out the study-related questionnaires independently.\n5. Given written informed consent.\n6. There is no need to use prescription or over-the-counter drugs regularly because of pre-existing chronic pain.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Suffering from bone pain due to other diseases currently.\n2. Allergy or contraindication to chemotherapeutic agents or pegfilgrastim.\n3. Previous use of pegfilgrastim.\n4. Previous received chemotherapy.\n5. Pregnancy or breastfeeding.\n6. Concurrently accompanied by other primary malignant tumors.","FEMALE","70 Years",{"count":55,"type":21},156,"INTERVENTIONAL",[58],"NA","According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, patients receiving high-risk or moderate-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) chemotherapy with at least one risk factor should receive prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). However, pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain (PIBP) remains a common and significant clinical issue without a satisfactory solution. Studies have reported that the incidence rate of PIBP is 71.3%, with severe bone pain occurring in 27.0% of cases. Currently, the available data on PIBP treatment are limited to case reports, reviews, and small randomized controlled trials.\n\nThe NCCN guidelines recommend preventive oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antihistamines as the treatment for PIBP. However, even with these preventive measures, the incidence rate of PIBP remains high at 61.1%, with severe bone pain occurring in 19.2% of cases. Severe bone pain can significantly impact the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQol), leading to potential refusal of pegfilgrastim administration and subsequent dose reduction in effective chemotherapy. Ultimately, this may have negative implications for tumor cure rates and patient survival.\n\nBased on previous literature, it appears that delaying the administration of pegfilgrastim may be associated with a lower incidence of PIBP. Therefore, our study aims to investigate the correlation between the timing of pegfilgrastim administration and the occurrence of PIBP.",[61,62,63,64,65,66],"Pegfilgrastim","Bone Pain","Chemotherapy","Breast Cancer","Patient-reported Outcomes","Quality of Life",[68,69,70,71,64,72],"pegfilgrastim","bone pain","patient-reported outcomes","chemotherapy","health related-quality of life","2024-09-09",{"date":75,"type":36},"2024-09-19",{"date":77,"type":36},"2023-05-04",{"date":79,"type":21},"2025-05-31",{"name":81,"class":43},"Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital",1,{"id":84,"slug":85,"hasResults":11,"nctId":86,"briefTitle":87,"officialTitle":88,"acronym":89,"eligibilityCriteria":90,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":53,"enrollmentInfo":91,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":56,"phases":93,"briefSummary":94,"conditions":95,"keywords":103,"overallStatus":106,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":107,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":108,"startDateStruct":110,"completionDateStruct":112,"leadSponsor":114,"locationsCount":4},"100516284","relief-pathway-in-patients-with-upper-abdominal-pain-100516284","NCT06002516","RELIEF-pathway in Patients With Upper Abdominal Pain","The RELIEF-pathway in Patients With Upper Abdominal Pain; an Open-label Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial","RELIEF","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients between 18 and 70 years old.\n* First referral due to upper abdominal pain (UAP) and symptoms due to Functional dyspepsia (ICPC code 87.02), Irritable Bowel syndrome (ICPC 93.0) or uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis (ICPC 98.03).\n* Proficient in reading and understanding of the Dutch language.\n* Referred to the outpatient clinic of gastroenterology or surgery.\n* Providing informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* If the following alarm symptoms are reported in the referral letter by the GP: weight loss, persistent vomiting, dysphagia, jaundice, hematemesis, melena, haematochezia, or anaemia.\n* Any other direct or indirect signs of cancer or upper GI tract bleeding.\n* Patients with a first or second-degree relative with a history of upper GI tract malignant neoplasm.\n* Patients with a history of complicated cholecystolithiasis.\n* A history of or current malignancy (except SCC or BCC of the skin).\n* Pregnancy;\n* Expected short life span of less than 12 months.\n* Known cirrhosis of the liver\n* Current schizophrenia, memory deficiency, or any other disorder that predispose them to unreliable questionnaire responses;\n* Mentally incompetent;",{"count":92,"type":21},471,[58],"Upper abdominal pain (UAP) is a common symptom and frequently the reason to visit the hospital. The prevalence of epigastric pain in the Dutch population is estimated to be as high as 37%. Moreover, Dutch hospitals yearly record \\>100.000 diagnoses related to UAP. In most patients, UAP can be attributed to symptomatic (functional) dyspepsia (FD), Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or uncomplicated gallstone disease (cholecystolithiasis), with a prevalence in the general population of 20-30%, 20%, and 6-9%, respectively. However, these conditions may have overlapping symptom patterns and generally affect similar populations. which contributes to ineffective (diagnostic) interventions. Patients are generally not aware of the similarity of symptoms and the poor outcome of some treatments.\n\nEducation positively influences patients' self-management and health judgment. In a recent open-label, multicentre trial the effectiveness of web-based patients' education is applied to reduce overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies in patients with dyspepsia. This study illustrated that an web-based education tool safely reduced 40% in upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. Lifestyle interventions (such as change of diet and\u002For physical activity) are widely incorporated in treatment programs for cardio-vascular diseases including diabetes mellitus and obesity. An web-based education tool on upper abdominal pain and other complaints combined with a lifestyle interventions for patients may be an effective treatment option for this large group of patients.\n\nThis study investigates the potential of an individualized web-based education tool as intervention for patients with functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome and uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis with the possibility to visit the Prevention and Lifestyle clinic (RELIEF pathway). The RELIEF pathway aims to reduce unnecessary health care utilization and, secondly, to maintain and improve quality of life by educating patients on lifestyle improvement.",[96,97,98,99,100,25,101,102],"Abdominal Pain","Gallstone; Colic","Dyspepsia","Irritable Bowel Syndrome","Health Care Utilization","Upper Abdominal Pain","Decision Aid",[104,105],"Abdominal pain","Health care utilization","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2023-08-15",{"date":109,"type":36},"2023-08-21",{"date":111,"type":21},"2024-05-01",{"date":113,"type":21},"2027-05-01",{"name":115,"class":43},"Radboud University Medical Center"]