ArticleJournal of oncology practice2013
An automated system for detecting nonadherence in laboratory testing and monitoring for myelosuppression in patients receiving self-administered oral chemotherapy.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2013. 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.
- Impact of nurse navigation and mobile app on brain tumor patients receiving oral anticancer therapy.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Characterization of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Therapy Initiation in High-Risk Patients With Heart Failure.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatient compliance with routine monitoring for self-administered chemotherapy is problematic. We sought to assess monitoring lapses and incidents of myelosuppression in patients undergoing self-administered chemotherapy for glioblastoma, as well as test software designed to detect and alert clinicians to lapses in monitoring. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted to identify patients (N=117) who received standard oral temozolomide for glioblastoma at our institution from 2003 to 2010. Gaps in monitoring were classified as minor (10 to 12 days) or major (13 to 28 days), and adverse events were graded using standard criteria. During the prospective portion of the study, we tested a software-based system that alerted clinicians of monitoring lapses and adverse events among patients receiving self-administered temozolomide for glioblastoma (n=37).
resultsOur retrospective review found that 34 of 117 patients experienced monitoring gaps during treatment. No association between gaps and risk of myelosuppression were found. Patients with gaps were more likely to be male (P=.04). Patients monitored prospectively with the software experienced no major gaps in monitoring (P=.007 compared with retrospective patients).
conclusionOur retrospective review demonstrated that monitoring nonadherence was occurring at a substantial rate. Our computerized system eliminated major gaps in monitoring in the prospective portion of our study. Although there is no association between monitoring gaps and the occurrence of adverse events, when they do coincide, continuing oral chemotherapy during an unrecognized adverse event may worsen the patient's condition. Automated systems are justified and serve a function not currently being addressed.
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.