Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22298194›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2012

Pharmaceutical care for patients with breast and ovarian cancer.

Andrea Liekweg, Martina Westfeld, Michael Braun, Oliver Zivanovic, Tania Schink, Walther Kuhn, Ulrich Jaehde

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Community Pharmacies in Poland-The Journey from a Deregulated to a Strictly Regulated Market.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea LiekwegInstitute of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Bonn, An der Immenburg 4, 53121 Bonn, Germany.
Martina Westfeld
Michael Braun
Oliver Zivanovic
Tania Schink
Walther Kuhn
Ulrich Jaehde
University of Bonn · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndividualized patient care may help reduce the incidence of adverse drug events in systemic cancer therapy. This study was conducted to explore the feasibility and potential of additional pharmaceutical care for breast and ovarian cancer patients.

methodsThe study was designed as a prospective, multicentered cohort study with a control group. Ninety-eight breast or ovarian cancer patients were recruited from outpatient oncology clinics and primary care oncologists: initially into the control group receiving standard care and after implementation of pharmaceutical care into the intervention group consisting of additional patient counseling on the management of treatment-associated adverse events and optimization of supportive medication. Primary outcome was the complete response to the antiemetic prophylaxis. Secondary endpoints were the severity of nausea, frequency of emesis, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment education.

resultsForty-eight patients were included in the control group and 50 in the intervention group. Of the patients, 35.4% in the control group and 76.0% in the intervention group (p < 0.001) had a complete response to the antiemetic prophylaxis. The severity of acute and delayed nausea was not reduced. The global health scale and two symptom scales (nausea and vomiting, appetite loss) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were positively affected by pharmaceutical care. Patient satisfaction with information was significantly higher in the intervention group.

conclusionsPatients with breast and ovarian cancer seem to benefit from pharmaceutical care, as suggested by improved patient-reported outcomes such as emetic episodes, quality of life, and patient satisfaction after implementation.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNauseaOutcome Assessment, Health CareOvarian NeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionAntiemeticsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID22298194
PMCPMC3461211
OpenAlexW2093460515

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.