ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[National second-opinion network for testicular cancer patients. Results of a user survey].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [German national second-opinion network for testicular cancer and penile carcinoma : Two sources for evidence-based information].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe national second opinion project of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group (GTCSG) has served to improve the quality of care provided to testicular cancer patients since 2006.
aimA recent online survey was carried out to characterize the users of the second opinion offer and clarify their motivation for participating in the project. Furthermore, the aim was to identify weaknesses of the project which could be improved. A total of 440 users of the second opinion project were contacted of whom 192 participated in the survey.
resultsIn summary, the data collected showed a high degree of satisfaction among the participants who appreciated the second opinions received. Some issues with a need for improvement, predominantly in the structural organisational area, were disclosed. These served as a basis for a recently completed revision of the project immanent internet-based communication platform with a new data mask facilitating the introduction of patients with relapsed tumors. Interestingly, a high proportion of survey participants expressed the desire for establishment of a similar second opinion project for patients with penile cancer (77.1% of the participants).
Indexed as
Identifiers
23959457What 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.