Trial reportJournal of comparative effectiveness research2017
A stakeholder-informed randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness study of an order prescribing intervention to improve colony stimulating factor use for cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: the TrACER study.
Trial report in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.JCO oncology practice · 2023Trial
- Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Trial
- A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Trial
- Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Impact of Primary Prophylactic Colony-Stimulating Factor Delivery Method on Febrile Neutropenia: Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2022Article
- Review
- Granulocyte colony stimulating factor use and adherence to clinical practice guidelines among women with breast cancer living in Puerto Rico: a population-based study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework.JCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Assessment of Electronic Alert to Reduce Overuse of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Patients Hospitalized for Febrile Neutropenia.JAMA 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are widely prescribed to avoid febrile neutropenia (FN) among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, but studies show their use is often not consistent with practice guidelines. In addition, there is limited high quality evidence assessing benefits and harms of primary prophylactic-CSF (PP-CSF) in the setting of chemotherapy that poses an intermediate risk of FN. To address these issues, with funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program, SWOG is sponsoring a prospective, cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial of an automated order entry protocol for PP-CSF among patients with breast, lung and colorectal cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a nested randomized controlled trial of PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. Primary outcomes include adherence to practice guidelines, overall rates of FN and rates of FN among persons receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. The study, the first pragmatic trial in the National Cancer Institute's cancer cooperative clinical trials network, will provide critical evidence to inform physician and patient decision-making around PP-CSF use and practice policies regarding automated orders in cancer components.
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.