Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27488741›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[German national second-opinion network for testicular cancer and penile carcinoma : Two sources for evidence-based information].

M Schrader, F Zengerling, O W Hakenberg, C Protzel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M SchraderKlinik für Urologie, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125, Berlin, Deutschland. mark.schrader@helios-kliniken.de.
F ZengerlingUrologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Deutschland.
O W HakenbergUrologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
C ProtzelUrologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe second-opinion network for testicular cancer is an internet-based platform addressing physicians treating testicular cancer patients. They are offered a second-opinion before determining further therapy after orchiectomy and completion of staging. THEME: The high rate of discrepancies between the first and second opinion in more than 30 % supports the assumption of a deficit in the implementation of treatment guidelines. In 2015, approximately 22 % of the newly diagnosed cases with testicular cancer in Germany were covered by this system. According to the present interim analysis, the second-opinion platform helps to avoid overtreatment of testicular cancer patients. The high acceptance of the project and the encouraging results of this interim analysis gave rise to considerations to apply the second-opinion model to penile carcinoma. Data from the UK and the Netherlands show that the second-opinion network for penile cancer could help to improve treatment standards and results in Germany. Current data and the intended further development of the system are discussed.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHealth Information SystemsHumansInternetMaleMedical OncologyMedical OveruseMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationTesticular NeoplasmsUrologyCancer, testicularInternet-platformOvertreatmentSecond-opinionTreatment guidelines

Identifiers

PMID27488741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.