ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2016
Stepwise development of a cancer care delivery research study to evaluate the prevalence of virus infections in cancer patients.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal Viral Screening of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the United States: A Cost-efficiency Evaluation.Cancer research communications · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and HIV Infection Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer From Academic and Community Oncology Practices.JAMA oncology · 2019Article
- Leveraging Implementation Science to Improve Cancer Care Delivery and Patient Outcomes.Journal of oncology practice · 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
14 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSWOG initiated a cancer care delivery research study of virus infection rates among newly diagnosed cancer patients. This study will inform viral screening guidelines in oncology clinics.
methodsIn a first step 'vanguard' phase, we evaluated the feasibility of multiple study procedures. Site investigators were surveyed to obtain feedback on study implementation.
resultsMuch higher enrollment occurred at sites where all physicians participated and viral testing was performed as routine practice. These procedures will be required going forward. Additional protocol changes based on site investigator input were implemented.
conclusionThis multistep protocol design process illustrates how cancer care delivery research studies can adapt to real-world strategies and procedures that exist at community clinics where the predominance of cancer patients are treated.
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.