Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29507483›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018

Assessing post-radiotherapy handover notes from a family physician perspective.

A Dang, S Miller, D Horvat, T Klassen-Ross, M Graveline, R Collins, R Olson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

A DangUniversity of British Columbia School of Medicine, Prince George, British Columbia.
S MillerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Centre for the North, Prince George, British Columbia.
D HorvatUniversity of British Columbia School of Medicine, Prince George, British Columbia.
T Klassen-RossUniversity of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia.
M GravelineNorthern Partners in Care, Prince George, British Columbia.
R CollinsNorthern Partners in Care, Prince George, British Columbia.
R OlsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Centre for the North, Prince George, British Columbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcross our province, post-radiotherapy (rt) handover notes are sent to family physicians (fps) after rt. Based on previous fp feedback, we created a revised post-radiotherapy handover note with more information requested by fps. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the revised handover note improved the note as a communication aid.

methodsPotential common and rare treatment side effects, oncologist contact information, and treatment intent were added to the revised handover note. Both versions were sent alongside a questionnaire to fps. Paired

resultsThere was a response rate of 37% for the questionnaires. Significantly greater clarity in the following categories was observed: responsibility for patient follow-up (mean score improvement of 1.2 on a 7-point Likert scale,

conclusionsThe inclusion of potential treatment side effects, oncologist contact information, treatment intent and a well-laid out follow-up schedule were essential information needed by fps for an effective post-rt completion note. With these additions, the revised post-rt handover note showed significant improvement.

Indexed as

post-radiotherapy handover noteRadiation oncology

Identifiers

PMID29507483
PMCPMC5832276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.