ArticleBMJ open2013
Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Patient initiated follow-up in cancer patients: A systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Electronic patient-reported monitoring of symptoms during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients: a feasibility study.BMC cancer · 2022Trial
- Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians' Perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- 'We do need to keep some human touch'-Patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway: A qualitative interview study.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Stage one endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: is there a role of traditional hospital follow-up in the detection of cancer recurrence in women after treatment?Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2021Article
- The Role of the Specialist Nurse in Gynaecological Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2018Review
- Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2016Article
- Article
- Aiding a reassertion of self: a qualitative study of the views and experiences of women with ovarian cancer receiving long-term nurse-led telephone follow-up.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015Article
- Evaluation of the indications for performing magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis at a referral center for cancer, according to the American College of Radiology criteria.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer.
designQuestionnaire survey.
settingGynaecological cancer centres and units. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION UK
participantsMembers of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses.
interventionsA questionnaire survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer.
resultsA total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved general practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 responses (25%) and patient-initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital-based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient-initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents (76/117 (65%)) provided routine tests, of which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Patients were usually discharged after 5 years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after 4 years, nine (8%) after three years and one (1%) after 2 years.
conclusionsPractice varied but most used a standard hospital-based protocol of appointments for 5 years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.
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.