ArticleBMC health services research2008
Comparative indicators for cancer network management in England: availability, characteristics and presentation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do community-based patient assistance programs affect the treatment and well-being of patients with breast cancer?Journal of oncology practice · 2014Trial
- Catching and monitoring clinical innovation through performance indicators. The case of the breast-conserving surgery indicator.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
- Benchmarking facilities providing care: An international overview of initiatives.SAGE open medicine · 2015Review
- Benchmarking and audit of breast units improves quality of care.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2013Review
- Organizational determinants of patients' experiences of care for breast, lung and colorectal cancers.European journal of cancer care · 2009Article
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
backgroundIn 2000, the national cancer plan for England created 34 cancer networks, new organisational structures to coordinate services across populations varying between a half and three million people. We investigated the availability of data sets reflecting measures of structure, process and outcome that could be used to support network management.
methodsWe investigated the properties of national data sets relating to four common cancers - breast, colorectal, lung and prostate. We reviewed the availability and completeness of these data sets, identified leading items within each set and put them into tables of the 34 cancer networks. We also investigated methods of presentation.
resultsThe Acute Hospitals Portfolio and the Cancer Standards Peer Review recorded structural characteristics at hospital and cancer service level. Process measures included Hospital Episode Statistics, recording admissions, and Hospital Waiting-List data. Patient outcome measures included the National Survey of Patient Satisfaction for cancer, and cancer survival, drawn from cancer registration. Data were drawn together to provide an exemplar indicator set a single network, and methods of graphical presentation were considered.
conclusionWhile not as yet used together in practice, comparative indicators are available within the National Health Service in England for use in performance assessment by cancer networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.