ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016
Follow-up care for survivors of lymphoma who have received curative-intent treatment.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ETIOPATHOGENIC, EPIDEMIOLOGIC AND CLINICAL-THERAPEUTIC COMPARISON OF NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA AND KAPOSI'S SARCOMA.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2020Article
- Evidence-Based Follow-up for Adults With Cancer.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Review
- Article
- Article
- Toward equitably high-quality cancer survivorship care.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2019Article
- Searching for Evidence-Based Reassurance Where None Could Be Found.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis evidence summary set out to assess the available evidence about the follow-up of asymptomatic survivors of lymphoma who have received curative-intent treatment.
methodsThe medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for evidence published between 2000 and August 2015 relating to lymphoma survivorship follow-up. The evidence summary was developed by a Working Group at the request of the Cancer Care Ontario Survivorship and Cancer Imaging programs because of the absence of evidence-based practice documents in Ontario for the follow-up and surveillance of asymptomatic patients with lymphoma in complete remission.
resultsEleven retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. The proportion of relapses initially detected by clinical manifestations ranged from 13% to 78%; for relapses initially detected by imaging, the proportion ranged from 8% to 46%. Median time for relapse detection ranged from 8.6 to 19 months for patients initially suspected because of imaging and from 8.6 to 33 months for those initially suspected because of clinical manifestations. Only one study reported significantly earlier relapse detection for patients initially suspected because of clinical manifestations (mean: 4.5 months vs. 6.0 months, SUMMARY: Findings in the present study support the importance of improving awareness on the part of survivors and clinicians about the symptoms that might be associated with recurrence. The evidence does not support routine imaging for improving outcomes in this patient population.
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.