Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27843639›Full record

ReviewESMO open2016

Interventions to improve care coordination between primary healthcare and oncology care providers: a systematic review.

Jennifer R Tomasone, Melissa C Brouwers, Marija Vukmirovic, Eva Grunfeld, Mary Ann O'Brien, Robin Urquhart, Melanie Walker, Fiona Webster, Margaret Fitch

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer R TomasoneSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University , Kingston, Ontario , Canada.
Melissa C BrouwersDepartment of Oncology , McMaster University & the Escarpment Cancer Research Institute , Hamilton, Ontario , Canada.
Marija VukmirovicDepartment of Oncology , McMaster University & the Escarpment Cancer Research Institute , Hamilton, Ontario , Canada.
Eva GrunfeldDepartment of Family and Community Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
Mary Ann O'BrienDepartment of Family and Community Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Surgery , Dalhousie University , Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada.
Melanie WalkerDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute , Queen's University , Kingston, Ontario , Canada.
Fiona WebsterDepartment of Family and Community Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
Margaret FitchBloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
University of Toronto · CAMcMaster University · CAQueen's University · CADalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordination of patient care between primary care and oncology care providers is vital to care quality and outcomes across the cancer continuum, yet it is known to be challenging. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate current or new models of care and/or interventions aimed at improving coordination between primary care and oncology care providers for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were searched for existing English language studies published between January 2000 and 15 May 2015. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were included if they evaluated a specific model/intervention that was designed to improve care coordination between primary care and oncology care providers, for any stage of the cancer continuum, for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Twenty-two studies (5 systematic reviews, 6 RCTs and 11 non-randomised studies) were included and varied with respect to the targeted phase of the cancer continuum, type of model or intervention tested, and outcome measures. The majority of studies showed no statistically significant changes in any patient, provider or system outcomes. Owing to conceptual and methodological limitations in this field, the review is unable to provide specific conclusions about the most effective or preferred model/intervention to improve care coordination. Imprecise results that lack generalisability and definitiveness provide limited evidence to base the development of future interventions and policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015025006.

Indexed as

cancer carecontinuity of carecoordination of careoncologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID27843639
PMCPMC5070279
OpenAlexW2528890271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.