Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27717057›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of cancer care2017

Open access follow-up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis.

M N Kirshbaum, J Dent, J Stephenson, A E Topping, V Allinson, M McCoy, S Brayford

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of cancer care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Specialist breast care nurses for support of women with breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

M N KirshbaumSchool of Health, Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.
J DentThe Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK.
J StephensonUniversity of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
A E ToppingHamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qaatar.
V AllinsonThe Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK.
M McCoyBreast Cancer Care, Sheffield, UK.
S BrayfordBreast Cancer Care, Sheffield, UK.
Breast Cancer Care · GBCalderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust · GBCharles Darwin University · AUHamad Medical Corporation · QAUniversity of Huddersfield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the acceptability of a supportive model of follow-up. One hundred and twelve women recovering from breast cancer were randomised to receive standard breast clinic aftercare (Control n = 56) or on demand by open access aftercare by breast care nurses (Intervention n = 56). Participants attended a support-based psycho-educational programme delivered in four half-day group sessions. Three quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, HADS) were administered at baseline and 6-monthly intervals for 2 years. Multilevel linear regression modelling methods were used for evaluation. Age was found to be a statistically significant predictor of quality of life in several sub-scales. Increasing age was negatively associated with sexual functioning, systematic therapy side effects and physical functioning, and positively associated with future perspective. Aftercare assignment was not found to be a statistically significant predictor. Women treated for early breast cancer were not disadvantaged by allocation to the open access supportive care model in terms of quality of life experienced. The model for follow-up was demonstrated to be a feasible alternative to routinised hospital-based follow-up and adds to the evidence for stratified follow-up for low-risk cancer patients, incorporating self-management education. Stratified follow-up pathways are viewed as a preferable approach.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAdultAftercareAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient Education as TopicPsychotherapyQuality of LifeSelf CareSurveys and Questionnairesbreast cancerpsychologicalquality of lifesupportive care

Identifiers

PMID27717057
PMCPMC5516199
OpenAlexW2512754442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.