SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2011
Filling in the gaps: reporting of concurrent supportive care therapies in breast cancer chemotherapy trials.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systemic treatment approaches in her2-negative advanced breast cancer-guidance on the guidelines.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015Review
- Barrier protective use of skin care to prevent chemotherapy-induced cutaneous symptoms and to maintain quality of life in patients with breast cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSupportive care interventions can have a substantial impact on side effects of chemotherapy. Consequently, accurate reporting of such interventions is essential when interpreting clinical trial results. This study determined the prevalence and quality of reporting of supportive care treatment for common chemotherapy-induced toxicities in phase III, breast cancer chemotherapy trials.
methodsA systematic review of phase III trials of breast cancer trials incorporating chemotherapy published in the last 5 years was undertaken. Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library. Supportive treatments evaluated were use of antiemetics, colony-stimulating growth factors, and antibiotics. Reporting quality was rated as "good", "fair", "poor", or "absent" using predetermined criteria.
resultsSixty-two trials met inclusion criteria. In 41 studies (66%), details regarding prophylactic antiemetic treatment were not provided. Growth factor use was not reported in 20 trials (32%). Instructions for the use of prophylactic antibiotics were absent in 45 trials (72%).
conclusionThere are significant deficiencies in reporting of use of prophylactic supportive care agents in breast cancer trials. Omission of supportive care instructions may impact substantially on patient management and health care system expenditure. Recommendations for the type, dose, and frequency of supportive care drugs should be provided and reported on in trials.
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.