Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20461089›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2010

Patient satisfaction with GP-led melanoma follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

P Murchie, M C Nicolson, P C Hannaford, E A Raja, A J Lee, N C Campbell

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P MurchieCentre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, UK. p.murchie@abdn.ac.uk
M C Nicolson
P C Hannaford
E A Raja
A J Lee
N C Campbell
University of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C10673/A3912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are no universally accepted guidelines for the follow-up of individuals with cutaneous melanoma. Furthermore, to date, there have been no randomised controlled trials of different models of melanoma follow-up care. This randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of GP-led melanoma follow-up on patient satisfaction, follow-up guideline compliance, anxiety and depression, as well as health status.

methodsA randomised controlled trial of GP-led follow-up of cutaneous melanoma was conducted over a period of 1 year with assessment by self-completed questionnaires and review of general practice-held medical records at baseline and 12 months later. It took place in 35 general practices in North-east Scotland. Subjects were 142 individuals (51.4% women 48.6% men; mean (s.d.) age 59.2 (15.2) years previously treated for cutaneous melanoma and free of recurrent disease. The intervention consisted of protocol-driven melanoma reviews in primary care, conducted by trained GPs and supported by centralised recall, rapid access pathway to secondary care and a patient information booklet. The main outcome measure was patient satisfaction measured by questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were adherence to guidelines, health status measured by Short Form-36 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

resultsThere were significant improvements in 5 out of 15 aspects of patient satisfaction during the study year in those receiving GP-led melanoma follow-up (all P<or=0.01). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with 7 out of 15 aspects of care at follow-up after adjustment for potential confounders. There was significantly greater adherence to guidelines in the intervention group during the study year. There was no significant difference in health status or anxiety and depression between intervention and control groups at either baseline or outcome.

conclusionsGP-led follow-up is feasible, engenders greater satisfaction in those patients who receive it, permits closer adherence to guidelines and does not result in adverse effects on health status or anxiety and depression when compared with traditional hospital-based follow-up for melanoma.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFamily PracticeFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth StatusHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient SatisfactionPractice Guidelines as TopicSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20461089
PMCPMC2869159
OpenAlexW2157528938

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.