Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23956026›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2013

Predicting cancer prognosis using interactive online tools: a systematic review and implications for cancer care providers.

Borsika A Rabin, Bridget Gaglio, Tristan Sanders, Larissa Nekhlyudov, James W Dearing, Sheana Bull, Russell E Glasgow, Alfred Marcus

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of a web-based prognostic calculator on prognostic confidence in outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Borsika A RabinAuthors' Affiliations: Cancer Research Network Cancer Communication Research Center, Institute for Health Research; Kaiser Permanente Colorado; and University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente; National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland; and Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Department of Medicine, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bridget Gaglio
Tristan Sanders
Larissa Nekhlyudov
James W Dearing
Sheana Bull
Russell E Glasgow
Alfred Marcus

Funding

Training and DevelopmentP20CA137219 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DEARING, JAMES WILLIAM · 2008 to 2012
$7.8M
NCI NIH HHS P20 CA137219NCI NIH HHS P20CA137219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer prognosis is of keen interest for patients with cancer, their caregivers, and providers. Prognostic tools have been developed to guide patient-physician communication and decision-making. Given the proliferation of prognostic tools, it is timely to review existing online cancer prognostic tools and discuss implications for their use in clinical settings. Using a systematic approach, we searched the Internet, Medline, and consulted with experts to identify existing online prognostic tools. Each was reviewed for content and format. Twenty-two prognostic tools addressing 89 different cancers were identified. Tools primarily focused on prostate (n = 11), colorectal (n = 10), breast (n = 8), and melanoma (n = 6), although at least one tool was identified for most malignancies. The input variables for the tools included cancer characteristics (n = 22), patient characteristics (n = 18), and comorbidities (n = 9). Effect of therapy on prognosis was included in 15 tools. The most common predicted outcome was cancer-specific survival/mortality (n = 17). Only a few tools (n = 4) suggested patients as potential target users. A comprehensive repository of online prognostic tools was created to understand the state-of-the-art in prognostic tool availability and characteristics. Use of these tools may support communication and understanding about cancer prognosis. Dissemination, testing, refinement of existing, and development of new tools under different conditions are needed.

Indexed as

InternetCaregiversHumansMEDLINEPatient Education as TopicPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID23956026
PMCPMC3832108

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.