ArticleHNO2010
[Patients with malignancies of the oro- and hypopharynx as well as the larynx. Significance/importance of oncological aftercare consultation].
Article in HNO, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is there a patient population with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region who might benefit from de-intensification of postoperative radiotherapy? : A monocentric retrospective analysis of a previously defined low-risk patient population treated with standard-of-care radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Incidence and localization of abnormal mucosa findings in patients consulting ENT outpatient clinics and data analysis of a cancer registry.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2014Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The necessity of a long-time, closely monitored, well-structured, personal and time-consuming aftercare consultation is still discussed controversially. Based on the analysis of our oncological patients with tumours of the pharynx and larynx in the period from 1999-2000 we want to emphasize that after treatment is of vital importance. Besides the main focus of oncology on the early detection of recurrent tumours, distant metastases and second primary tumours as well as a fast interdisciplinary and mostly multimodal treatment planning, consultation is also a central point of reference and coordination site for rehabilitation, psycho-oncology and quality assurance of treatment. Last but not least consultation serves for purposes of continuous data collection and oncological epidemiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20694544What 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.