ArticleBMJ open2018
Impacts on health outcomes and on resource utilisation of home-based parenteral chemotherapy administration: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impacts on health outcomes and on resources utilization for anticancer drugs injection at home, a complex intervention: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Hospital at home for oncologic patients: SEOM-SEHAD consensus on clinical practice.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Review
- Home Cancer Care Research: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis (1990-2021).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Photosensitizer-driven nanoassemblies of homodimeric prodrug for self-enhancing activation and synergistic chemo-photodynamic therapy.Theranostics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the demonstrated feasibility and policies to enable more to receive chemotherapy at home, in a few countries, parenteral chemotherapy administration at home remains currently marginal. Of note, findings of different studies on health outcomes and resources utilisation vary, leading to conflicting results. This protocol outlines a systematic review that seeks to synthesise and critically appraise the current state of evidence on the comparison between home setting and hospital setting for parenteral chemotherapy administration within the same high standards of clinical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been prepared following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols approach. Electronic searches will be conducted on bibliographic databases selected from the earliest available data through 15 November 2017 published in French and English languages. Additional potential papers in the selected studies and grey literature will be also included in the review. The review will include all types of studies exploring patients receiving anticancer drugs for injection at home compared with patients receiving the drugs in a hospital setting, and will assess at least one of the following criteria: patients' health outcomes, patients' or caregivers' satisfaction, resource utilisation with cost savings, and incentives and/or barriers of each admission setting according to patients' and relatives' points of view. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract relevant data from the included studies. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the 'Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies' developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool, in addition to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement for economic studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the review is focused on the analysis of secondary data, it does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be disseminated through articles in peer-reviewed journals and trade publications, as well as presentations at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017068164.
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.