Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19066612›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2009

Nurse-led follow-up of patients after oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer surgery: a randomised trial.

E M L Verschuur, E W Steyerberg, H W Tilanus, S Polinder, M-L Essink-Bot, K T C Tran, A van der Gaast, L P S Stassen, E J Kuipers, P D Siersema

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Nurse-led follow-up care for head and neck cancer patients: a quasi-experimental prospective trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Trial
  9. Clinical predictors of early reflux and symptom severity after esophagectomy: a risk prediction tool.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Oesophageal cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Nurse-led follow-up care for cancer patients: what is known and what is needed.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Review
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

10 authors.

E M L VerschuurDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. emlvers@wxs.nl
E W Steyerberg
H W Tilanus
S Polinder
M-L Essink-Bot
K T C Tran
A van der Gaast
L P S Stassen
E J Kuipers
P D Siersema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Between January 2004 and February 2006, 109 patients after intentionally curative surgery for oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer were randomised to standard follow-up of surgeons at the outpatient clinic (standard follow-up; n=55) or by regular home visits of a specialist nurse (nurse-led follow-up; n=54). Longitudinal data on generic (EuroQuol-5D, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30) and disease-specific quality of life (EORTC QLQ-OES18), patient satisfaction and costs were collected at baseline and at 6 weeks and 4, 7 and 13 months afterwards. We found largely similar quality-of-life scores in the two follow-up groups over time. At 4 and 7 months, slightly more improvement on the EQ-VAS was noted in the nurse-led compared with the standard follow-up group (P=0.13 and 0.12, respectively). Small differences were also found in patient satisfaction between the two groups (P=0.14), with spouses being more satisfied with nurse-led follow-up (P=0.03). No differences were found in most medical outcomes. However, body weight of patients of the standard follow-up group deteriorated slightly (P=0.04), whereas body weight of patients of the nurse-led follow-up group remained stable. Medical costs were lower in the nurse-led follow-up group (2600 euro vs 3800 euro), however, due to the large variation between patients, this was not statistically significant (P=0.11). A cost effectiveness acceptability curve showed that the probability of being cost effective for costs per one point gain in general quality-of-life exceeded 90 and 75% after 4 and 13 months of follow-up, respectively. Nurse-led follow-up at home does not adversely affect quality of life or satisfaction of patients compared with standard follow-up by clinicians at the outpatient clinic. This type of care is very likely to be more cost effective than physician-led follow-up.

Indexed as

CardiaNursesAgedEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID19066612
PMCPMC2634677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.