ArticleBMJ open2017
Experience of living with cancer and comorbid illness: protocol for a qualitative systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2019Pooled it
- Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- Informal caregivers' quality of life and management strategies following the transformation of their cancer caregiving role: A qualitative systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2021Review
- Quality-assured research environments for translational cancer research.Molecular oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere are an increasing number of people living with and beyond cancer, whose experience is further complicated by additional long-term health conditions in the context of an ageing population. The supportive care needs of this growing patient group should be recognised and addressed. There is a need to explore the experience of living with cancer and comorbid illness in order to develop optimal models of patient-centred care. This protocol describes a systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence relating to the experience of cancer and comorbid illness for patients, informal carers and professionals, and to highlight areas where more research is needed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidance will be undertaken. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases will be systematically searched for articles relevant to patient, carer and professional experiences. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for inclusion and evaluate them according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Extracted data will be combined using recognised methods of qualitative synthesis to offer new insights into the topic area and for a patient-centred model of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review does not require formal ethical review as no direct patient contact or patient identifiable data is used. Conduct of the review has been approved internally by the University of Edinburgh Centre for Population Health Sciences Ethics Review Committee. Results of the review will be published in a generalist peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference in addition to informing subsequent empirical work by the authors on this topic area.
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.