ArticleJournal of oncology practice2018
Caution Ahead: Research Challenges of a Randomized Controlled Trial Implemented to Improve Breast Cancer Treatment at Safety-Net Hospitals.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Health Interventions for Adult Patients With Cancer Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo implement and test a Web-based tracking and feedback (T&F) tool to close referral loops and reduce adjuvant breast cancer treatment underuse in safety-net hospitals (SNHs). PATIENT AND
methodsWe randomly assigned 10 SNHs, identified patients with new stage 1 to stage 3 breast cancer, assessed their connection with the oncologist, and relayed this information to surgeons for follow-up. We interviewed key informants about the tool's usefulness. We conducted intention-to-treat and pre- and poststudy analyses to assess the T&F tool and implementation effectiveness, respectively.
resultsBetween the study start and intervention implementation, several hospitals reorganized care delivery and 49% of patients scheduled to undergo breast cancer surgery were ineligible because they already were in contact with an oncologist. One high-volume hospital closed. Despite randomization of hospitals, intervention (INT) hospitals had fewer white patients (5% v 16%; P = .0005), and more underuse (28% v 15%; P = .002) compared with usual care (UC) hospitals. Over time, INT hospitals with poorer follow-up significantly reduced underuse compared with UC hospitals (INT hospitals, from 33% to 9%, P = .001 v UC hospitals, from 15% to 11%, P = .5). There was no difference in underuse (9% at INT hospitals, 11% at UC hospitals; P = .8). Hospitals with better follow-up (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98) had less underuse. In settings with poor follow-up and tracking approaches, key informants found the tool useful. The rapidly changing delivery landscape posed significant challenges to this implementation research.
conclusionA T&F tool did not significantly reduce adjuvant underuse but may help reduce underuse in SNHs with poor follow-up capabilities. Inability to discern T&F effectiveness is likely due to encountered challenges that inform lessons for future implementation research.
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.