Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28197848›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months.

L Batehup, K Porter, H Gage, P Williams, P Simmonds, E Lowson, L Dodson, N J Davies, R Wagland, J D Winter and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Improved models of care for cancer survivors.Lancet (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

13 authors.

L BatehupHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK. Lbatehup@soton.ac.uk.
K PorterHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
H GageSchool of Economics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
P WilliamsDepartment of Mathematics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
P SimmondsCancer Research UK, Clinical Research Unit, University of Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
E LowsonHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
L DodsonHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
N J DaviesHealth Psychology Consultancy Ltd., Staffordshire, UK.
R WaglandHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
J D WinterUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
A RichardsonHealth Sciences, Nightingale Building, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
A TurnerCentre for Technology Enabled Health Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.
J L CornerThe University of Nottingham, Executive Office, Trent Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU).

methodsQuestionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared.

resultsPatients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p < 0.001), radiotherapy (p < 0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p = 0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p < 0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year

conclusionsPTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsAftercareColorectal cancerFollow-upPatient triggered-follow-upRemote surveillance

Identifiers

PMID28197848
PMCPMC5445145

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.