ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014
Thromboprophylaxis for lung cancer patients--multimodality assessment of clinician practices, perceptions and decision support tools.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. 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.
- Venous thromboembolism and lung cancer: a review.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2015Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to report the opinions and self-reported practices of clinicians, as well as the availability of decision support tools, regarding appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with lung cancer to identify variation in practice and/or divergence from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG).
methodsA computer-generated survey (SurveyMonkey software) was distributed to surgical, radiation and medical oncologists with lung cancer specialisation, via membership of the Australian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG) from May to September 2013.
resultsSeventy-two clinicians, from public, private, specialist and general hospitals, completed the survey (46% response rate). Hospital-endorsed CPG were widely available (91%); however, these routinely lacked robust recommendations for the ambulatory care setting (98%) and risk stratification tools (65%). Clinicians consistently identified ambulatory care treatment modalities (chemotherapy, alone or in combination with radiotherapy) as having similar (high) thrombotic risk as surgery. Timing and duration of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis prescribing among surgical oncologists varied and were divergent from guideline recommendations. Fifty-eight percent of surveyed clinicians cited a lack of high-quality data to guide preventative strategies in lung cancer patients.
conclusionClinicians consistently identified patients with lung cancer as having a high thromboembolic risk in both ambulatory and surgical settings, but with differences in recommendations and variation in practice. CPG lacked robust recommendations for the ambulatory care setting, the main arena for the multimodality lung cancer treatment paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24573603What 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.