Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23197186›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: a pilot program.

Ann H Partridge, Virginia W Norris, Victoria S Blinder, Bruce A Cutter, Michael T Halpern, Jennifer Malin, Michael N Neuss, Antonio C Wolff, ASCO Breast Cancer Registry Pilot Steering Group

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Empowering survivors after colorectal and lung cancer treatment: Pilot study of a Self-Management Survivorship Care Planning intervention.European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ann H PartridgeDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. ahpartridge@partners.org
Virginia W Norris
Victoria S Blinder
Bruce A Cutter
Michael T Halpern
Jennifer Malin
Michael N Neuss
Antonio C Wolff
ASCO Breast Cancer Registry Pilot Steering Group

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need to better measure and improve the quality of oncology care and improve communication with patients and other providers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of prospective data collection for quality assessment in daily clinical practice. Data were used to create and share treatment plans/summaries (TPSs) at the point of care.

methodsUsing a web-based tool, 20 diverse practices entered clinical data on each new early-stage breast cancer patient into the BCR for 14 months (September 2009 through November 2010). The tool created individual TPSs that were shared with patients. Practices received practice-specific and aggregate BCR quality measures data, participated in a survey, and received a participation stipend.

resultsTwenty practices entered 2014 patients into the BCR, collecting demographic, clinical, and treatment information. Fifty-two percent of practice participants replied to an end-of-pilot survey: 73% were satisfied with the BCR and web-based tool, 31% expressed concern regarding time and effort, and 52% reported additional practice costs during the pilot. Among those who created or shared the TPSs, 90% thought the documents improved oncologist-patient communication, and 95% favored using BCR data for practice quality improvement.

conclusionsProspective data collection for quality assessment is feasible and allows sharing of TPSs with patients at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on decreasing implementation burden to practices, broadening participation, examining costs, and, most importantly, assessing its effects on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient Care PlanningProgram DevelopmentRegistriesBreast NeoplasmsCommunicationData CollectionFemaleHumansPilot ProjectsQuality Assurance, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23197186
PMCPMC3978173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.