ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
The differences in the assessments of side effects at an oncology outpatient clinic.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disproportionality analysis of taste disorders using the FDA adverse event reporting system and Japanese adverse drug event report databases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Analysis of the relation between adverse events and overall survival in patients treated with pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2023Observational
- Nurse-pharmacist collaborations for promoting medication safety among community-dwelling adults: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022Article
- Verification of the Usefulness of an Assessment and Risk Control Sheet that Promotes Management of Cancer Drug Therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background There is a growing interest in the use of targeted and immunotherapies in oncology. However, the assessment of side effects can be different due to interpretation of patients' health status by healthcare professionals in oncology outpatient clinics. Objective To demonstrate the differences in the assessments of side effects conducted independently by a clinical pharmacist and nurses in patients who receive targeted therapies at an oncology outpatient clinic. Setting The study was conducted at the University Oncology Hospital in an outpatient clinic from October 2015 to March 2016. Method Patients receiving ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, bevacizumab, panitumumab or cetuximab during study period were included. The assessment of side effects was conducted by a pharmacist and nurse independently using the NCI-CTCAE version-2. Main outcome measure To compare the severity assessments of side effects between a clinical pharmacist and nurses in an outpatient clinic. Results During the study, 204 visits for 43 patients with a total of 5508 side effect assessments were recorded where 1137 (20.64%) assessments were graded differently. Out of 1137 assessments, 473 of them were graded higher by a clinical pharmacist whereas 664 were graded higher by nurses. Statistically significant differences were detected in the assessment of vomiting, taste changes, sense changes, alopecia, fatigue, mood changes, anxiety, hearing impairment, and allergic reactions. Conclusion An assessment of side effects by healthcare providers in patients with cancer may be challenging due to an increased workload in clinics and undistinguishable symptoms of side effects and cancer itself. Therefore, a new care model which increases an interprofessional communication may improve pharmaceutical care in oncology outpatient clinics.
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.