ArticlePloS one2018
Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-Related Quality of Life for Persons Treated or Monitored for Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (AMC-A01).JCO oncology practice · 2025Trial
- Quality of life outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of patient navigation in Latina breast cancer survivors.Cancer medicine · 2020Trial
- Multi-level Factors to Build Confidence and Support in Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of Patient Experience During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- The Economic Burden of Prostate Cancer in Antigua and Barbuda: A Prevalence-Based Cost-of-Illness Analysis from the Healthcare Provider Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Active surveillance of atypical cartilaginous tumours of bone: short term quality of life measurements.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Health-related quality of life in Japanese low-risk prostate cancer patients choosing active surveillance: 3-year follow-up from PRIAS-JAPAN.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- [The problem of medical overuse : Finding a definition and solutions].Der Internist · 2021Review
- Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Decision regret in men living with and beyond nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United Kingdom: A population-based patient-reported outcome study.Psycho-oncology · 2020Article
- Identifying risk factors for depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Illness and disease: an empirical-ethical viewpoint.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Modelling reassurances of clinicians with hidden Markov models.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- The 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Is Prognostic for Biochemical Failure in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer After Radiation Therapy at a Community Cancer Center.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveActive surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.
resultsA total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.
conclusionsThis study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.
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.