Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18663481›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2009

A questionnaire study of the approach to the anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with cancer by staff in a district general hospital.

Deepta Churm, Inga M Andrew, Keith Holden, Anthony J Hildreth, Colette Hawkins

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03784911 (Assessment of Body Composition During Cancer Treatment Using the SOZO Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03784911 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Assessment of Body Composition During Cancer Treatment Using the SOZO Device

TypeobservationalSponsorPrisma Health-UpstateRan2018 to 2023Enrolled51ConditionsCancerArmsSOZO Device, DEXA Scan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of health-related quality of life instruments in patients with cancer cachexia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical implication of megestrol acetate in metastatic gastric cancer: a big data analysis from Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) database.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  5. Health care professionals' experiences of dealing with cancer cachexia.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Clinical significance of weight changes at diagnosis in solid tumours.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cancer cachexia-when proteasomal inhibition is not enough.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The role of dietary nutrition in stomach cancer.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2013
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Deepta ChurmMarie Curie Hospice, Marie Curie Drive, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 6SS, UK.
Inga M Andrew
Keith Holden
Anthony J Hildreth
Colette Hawkins
County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust · GBMarie Curie Hospice · GBSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

goals of workThis questionnaire study was designed to investigate understanding, assessment and management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS) amongst hospital staff.

methodsQualified nurses and doctors on general medical and surgical wards within a district general hospital were asked to complete a questionnaire enquiring about understanding of the term cachexia, routine assessment of commonly associated symptoms and approaches to management of three commonly associated symptoms (poor appetite, early satiety and dry mouth). MAIN

resultsOne hundred seventeen questionnaires were distributed with 100 returned (86% response rate). Cachexia was most frequently described as weight loss (79%) and anorexia (49%). Some symptoms (including altered appetite, constipation, nausea and vomiting) were routinely assessed during admission or review of these patients. Some common symptoms (including mouth problems, early satiety) were much less likely to be enquired about. Management of the three key symptoms demonstrated a range of approaches with little consistency. Early satiety was particularly poorly managed, with 29% of staff being unable to recognise or treat it.

conclusionsThe study highlights the variable understanding of ACS and the lack of standardised assessment and management tools amongst staff in an acute hospital setting. This is likely to lead to inconsistent, and perhaps inadequate, care of patients with palliative care needs. Greater awareness and basic pathways of care may help to improve the experience of ACS for patients with cancer.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAnorexiaAttitude of Health PersonnelCachexiaEnglandHospitals, GeneralHumansMedical Staff, HospitalNeoplasmsNursing Staff, HospitalPalliative CareSurveys and QuestionnairesSyndrome

Identifiers

PMID18663481
OpenAlexW2090912401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.