ArticleBMJ open2017
Cross-sectional study of the provision of interventional oncology services in the UK.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Multi-centre, Single Arm, Non-randomized, Prospective European Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the HistoSonics System in the Treatment of Primary and Metastatic Liver Cancers (#HOPE4LIVER).Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Developing a Roadmap for Interventional Oncology.The oncologist · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map out the current provision of interventional oncology (IO) services in the UK.
designCross-sectional multicentre study.
settingAll National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland health boards.
participantsInterventional radiology (IR) departments in all NHS trusts/health boards in the UK.
resultsA total of 179 NHS trusts/health boards were contacted. We received a 100% response rate. Only 19 (11%) institutions had an IO lead. 144 trusts (80%) provided IO services or had a formal pathway of referral in place for patients to a recipient trust. 21 trusts (12%) had plans to provide an IO service or formal referral pathway in the next 12 months only. 14 trusts (8%) did not have a pathway of referral and no plans to implement one. 70 trusts (39%) offered supportive and disease-modifying procedures. One trust had a formal referral pathway for supportive procedures. 73 trusts (41%) provided only supportive procedures (diagnostic or therapeutic). Of these, 43 (59%) had a referral pathway for disease-modifying IO procedures, either from a regional cancer network or through IR networks and 30 trusts (41%) did not have a referral pathway for disease-modifying procedures.
conclusionThe provision of IO services in the UK is promising; however, collaborative networks are necessary to ensure disease-modifying IO procedures are made accessible to all patients and to facilitate larger registry data for research with commissioning of new services.
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.