ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2016
Perception of prognosis of cancer patients by non-oncologists.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A whole-process management intervention to transform pessimistic attitudes toward cancer care among internal medicine residents.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Increasing challenges of general practitioner-oncologist interaction in end-of-life communication: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- A Critical Appraisal and Targeted Intervention of the Oncology Experience in an Internal Medicine Residency.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- Internal Medicine Residents' Perception of Cancer Prognosis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
- Factors Influencing Physician Prognosis: A Scoping Review.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData are lacking regarding the perception of cancer patients' prognosis by physicians who are not oncologists.
methodsThis was a multicenter survey of seven university-affiliated hospitals, assessing physicians' perception of the median survival of patients with seven advanced malignancies. The study cohort included physicians from all 73 internal medicine, surgery, emergency medicine and critical care departments in the participating hospitals. Family practitioners were contacted through email. Physicians' specialty, age, professional status and hospital type (secondary vs tertiary) were noted. The primary end-point was defined as the percentage of answers with a pessimistic error of more than a year in perception of prognosis as compared with current literature. The secondary end-point was defined as any pessimistic answer.
resultsFour hundred and eighty-eight physicians filled the questionnaire, including 429 hospital physicians and 59 family practitioners. Perception of prognosis was pessimistic when compared with current literature, with 37% and 59% of the answers meeting the primary and the secondary end-points, respectively. Younger age, resident status and work at a secondary hospital were associated with pessimistic perception (P<.001 for all variables). Pessimistic outlook was similar for all specialties and for most malignancies, including those with considerable cure rates such as Hodgkin's lymphoma and germ cell tumour.
conclusionNon-oncologists are considerably over pessimistic regarding their perception of the cancer patients' prognosis. A pessimistic perception of prognosis might cause undertreatment and therefore affect both patients' quality of life and their actual survival. Education regarding cancer therapy and its benefits should be emphasised for non-oncologists involved in cancer patient care.
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.