ReviewJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2017
Paradigm shift in head and neck oncology patient management.
Review in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-curative care options for patients with advanced-stage head and neck cancer: Current state of the science and future opportunities.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Review
- Patient experience of the acute post-surgical period following total laryngectomy during the COVID-19 era.International journal of language & communication disorders · 2022Article
- The Functional & Quality of Life Outcomes of Total Glossectomy with Laryngeal Preservation.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
- Nomogram for preoperative prediction of nodal extracapsular extension or positive surgical margins in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Oral 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis article describes a paradigm shift in what is considered to be good care for patients living with and after (head and neck) cancer. HNO patients often experience severe and difficult physical and psychosocial problems due to the nature and location of the disease. Many disciplines are involved in their treatment, so their voice is only one amongst many others in the decision making process. For this patient group it seems complicated to put the concept of Shared Decision Making into practice. As a step in this direction, patient reported outcomes which ask patients to select the disconcerting issues and symptoms can be used as a basis for referral, supportive care and treatment decision making. We need to provide more tailored and personalized information that is specific to individual circumstances, preferences and concerns and focuses more on the impact of treatment and access to help and support. Follow up of these patients should be concentrated on both medical and emotional aspects. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A shift in the way caregivers provide their information contributes to a more profound involvement of patients in treatment decisions.
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.