ArticleBMC cancer2015
The adherence paradox: guideline deviations contribute to the increased 5-year survival of breast cancer patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical Practice Guidelines Adherence and the Impact on Health Outcomes in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Observational
- A Pragmatic Benchmarking Study of an Evidence-Based Personalised Approach in 1938 Adolescents with High-Risk Idiopathic Scoliosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Individualized Care Is Superior to Standardized Care for the Majority of Critically Ill Patients.Critical care medicine · 2020Article
- A method for analyzing inpatient care variability through physicians' orders.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
- Providers and Patients Caught Between Standardization and Individualization: Individualized Standardization as a Solution Comment on "(Re) Making the Procrustean Bed? Standardization and Customization as Competing Logics in Healthcare".International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn German breast cancer care, the S1-guidelines of the 1990s were substituted by national S3-guidelines in 2003. The application of guidelines became mandatory for certified breast cancer centers. The aim of the study was to assess guideline adherence according to time intervals and its impact on survival.
methodsWomen with primary breast cancer treated in three rural hospitals of one German geographical district were included. A cohort study design encompassed women from 1996-97 (N = 389) and from 2003-04 (N = 488). Quality indicators were defined along inpatient therapy sequences for each time interval and distinguished as guideline-adherent and guideline-divergent medical decisions. Based on all of the quality indicators, a binary overall adherence index was defined and served as a group indicator in multivariate Cox-regression models. A corrected group analysis estimated adjusted 5-year survival curves.
resultsFrom a total of 877 patients, 743 (85 %) and 504 (58 %) were included to assess 104 developed quality indicators and the resuming binary overall adherence index. The latter significantly increased from 13-15 % (1996-97) up to 33-35 % (2003-04). Within each time interval, no significant survival differences of guideline-adherent and -divergent treated patients were detected. Across time intervals and within the group of guideline-adherent treated patients only, survival increased but did not significantly differ between time intervals. Across time intervals and within the group of guideline-divergent treated patients only, survival increased and significantly differed between time intervals.
conclusionsInfrastructural efforts contributed to the increase of process quality of the examined certified breast cancer center. Paradoxically, a systematic impact on 5-year survival has been observed for patients treated divergently from the guideline recommendations. This is an indicator for the appropriate application of guidelines. A maximization of guideline-based decisions instead of the ubiquitous demand of guideline adherence maximization is advocated.
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.