ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2013
Factors influencing the quality of local management of ductal carcinoma in situ: a cohort study.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of Geographical Information Systems in Analyzing Geographic Accessibility to Inform Radiotherapy Planning: A Systematic Review.JCO global oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Catching and monitoring clinical innovation through performance indicators. The case of the breast-conserving surgery indicator.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Effect of Referral Patterns and Treatment Type on Oncologic Outcomes for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Cureus · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend radiotherapy (rt) after breast-conserving surgery (bcs) for optimal control of ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis). The aim of the present study was to characterize the rates of rt consideration and administration, and to identify factors influencing those rates in a cohort of women diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 in Quebec.
methodsQuebec's medical service claims and discharge abstract database were used. Using consultation for rt as an indicator for rt consideration, odds ratios (ors) and 95% confidence intervals (cis) were estimated using a generalized estimating equations regression model.
resultsOf 4139 women analyzed (mean age: 58 years), 3435 (83%) received a consultation for rt, and 3057 of them (89%) proceeded with treatment. The rate of rt consideration increased by 7.1% over the study period, with notable differences in the various age groups. Relative to women 50-69 years of age, the ors for being considered for rt were, respectively, 0.89 (95% ci: 0.71 to 1.12), 0.71 (95% ci: 0.55 to 0.92), and 0.20 (95% ci: 0.14 to 0.31) for women younger than 50, 70-79, and 80 years of age and older. Distance to a designated breast care centre lowered the probability of rt consideration, but the presence of comorbidities did not. A surgeon's volume of bcss increased the probability of being considered for rt by 7% for every 10 such procedures performed (or: 1.07; 95% ci: 1.04 to 1.11).
conclusionsConsideration for rt has increased over time. However, older women (despite being in good health) and those living far from a designated breast care centre or having a low-case-volume surgeon were less likely to be considered for rt.
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.