ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2009
Cancer diagnostic assessment programs: standards for the organization of care in Ontario.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of factors associated with the patient and diagnostic intervals in gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Article
- A method to audit and score implementation of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in large health regions - an observational pilot study using rectal cancer surgery in Ontario.BMC health services research · 2020Observational
- How do the characteristics of breast cancer diagnostic assessment programmes influence service delivery: A mixed methods study.European journal of cancer care · 2018Article
- Regional process redesign of lung cancer care: a learning health system pilot project.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Impact of rapid investigation clinic on timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2017Article
- Cost analysis of breast cancer diagnostic assessment programs.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Budget impact analysis of a breast rapid diagnostic unit.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Article
- Improving patient flow and timeliness in the diagnosis and management of breast abnormalities: the impact of a rapid diagnostic unit.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
- Effect of specialized diagnostic assessment units on the time to diagnosis in screen-detected breast cancer patients.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- A patient-centred approach toward surgical wait times for colon cancer: a population-based analysis.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2014Article
- Piloting a regional collaborative in cancer surgery using a "community of practice" model.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2014Article
- How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- Improving cancer control in Canada one case at a time: the "Knowledge Translation in Cancer" casebook.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2011Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving access to better, more efficient, and rapid cancer diagnosis is a necessary component of a high-quality cancer system. How diagnostic services ought to be organized, structured, and evaluated is less understood and studied. Our objective was to address this gap.
methodsAs a quality initiative of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, the Diagnostic Assessment Standards Panel, with representation from clinical oncology experts, institutional and clinical administrative leaders, health service researchers, and methodologists, conducted a systematic review and a targeted environmental scan of the unpublished literature. Standards were developed based on expert consensus opinion informed by the identified evidence. Through external review, clinicians and administrators across Ontario were given the opportunity to provide feedback.
resultsThe body of evidence consists of thirty-five published studies and fifteen unpublished guidance documents. The evidence and consensus opinion consistently favoured an organized, centralized system with multidisciplinary team membership as the optimal approach for the delivery of diagnostic cancer assessment services. Independent external stakeholders agreed (with higher mean values, maximum 5, indicating stronger agreement) that DAP standards are needed (mean: 4.6), that standards should be formally approved (mean: 4.3), and importantly, that standards reflect an effective approach that will lead to quality improvements in the cancer system (mean: 4.5) and in patient care (mean: 4.3).
interpretationBased on the best available evidence, standards for the organization of DAPS are offered. There is clear need to integrate formal and comprehensive evaluation strategies with the implementation of the standards to advance this field.
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.