ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016
Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evaluating the breast cancer quality of care indicators in Iran; multicenter study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Monitoring of prostate cancer screening in the European Union: development of key performance indicators through the PRAISE-U project.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Measuring the diagnostic management and follow-up imaging for glioma patients across Belgian hospitals between 2016 and 2019.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Measuring the quality of care in metastatic colorectal cancer: a scoping review of quality indicators.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- 360 Health Analysis (H360)-A Comparison of Key Performance Indicators in Breast Cancer Management across Health Institution Settings in Portugal.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Establishment of Iran Musculoskeletal Tumor Registry: A Study Protocol and Lessons Learned from Implementation and the Pilot Phase.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
- Diagnostic work-up and systemic treatment for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in four Southeast Asian countries.ESMO open · 2022Article
- A scoping review on population-centered indicators for cancer care continuum.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on cancer management in military hospitals of Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2021Article
- Investigating the system effect of reporting multidisciplinary care measures for cancer services in New South Wales, Australia.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes: selecting candidate performance indicators.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- 360 Health Analysis (H360) - A Proposal for an Integrated Vision of Breast Cancer in Portugal.European journal of breast health · 2020Review
- Consensus-Derived Quality Performance Indicators for Neuroendocrine Tumour Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
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
backgroundCancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer.
methodsCandidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review.
resultsA total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators.
conclusionsThe modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.
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.