Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515560›Full record

Trial reportDysphagia2019

Economic Analysis of a Three-Arm RCT Exploring the Delivery of Intensive, Prophylactic Swallowing Therapy to Patients with Head and Neck Cancer During (Chemo)Radiotherapy.

Laurelie R Wall, Sanjeewa Kularatna, Elizabeth C Ward, Bena Cartmill, Anne J Hill, Elizabeth Isenring, Joshua Byrnes, Sandro V Porceddu

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Dysphagia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Prehabilitation in radiation therapy: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laurelie R WallDivision of Speech Pathology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia. l.wall@uq.edu.au.
Sanjeewa KularatnaCentre for Applied Health Economics, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Sir Samuel Griffith Centre, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia.
Elizabeth C WardDivision of Speech Pathology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Bena CartmillCentre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Buranda, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Anne J HillDivision of Speech Pathology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Elizabeth IsenringFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Sir Samuel Griffith Centre, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia.
Sandro V PorcedduRadiation Oncology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUMenzies School of Health Research · AUBond University · AUMetro South Health · AUPrincess Alexandra Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research advocates for the use of intensive, prophylactic swallowing therapy to help reduce the severity of dysphagia in patients receiving (chemo)radiotherapy ([C]RT) for head/neck cancer (HNC). Unfortunately, the intensity of this therapy, coupled with growing patient numbers and limited clinical resources, provides challenges to many international cancer facilities. Telepractice has been proposed as a potential method to provide patients with greater support in home-practice, whilst minimising burden to the health service. This study investigated the clinical and patient-attributable costs of delivering an intensive, prophylactic swallowing therapy protocol via a new telepractice application "SwallowIT" as compared to clinician-directed FTF therapy and independent patient self-directed therapy. Patients (n = 79) with oropharyngeal HNC receiving definitive (C)RT were randomised to receive therapy via a: clinician-directed (n = 26), patient-directed (n = 27), or SwallowIT-assisted (n = 26) model of care. Data pertaining to health service costs (service time, consumables, therapy resources), patient-attributable costs (travel and wages) and patient-reported health-related quality of life (QoL) (AQoL-6D) were collected. SwallowIT provided a cost-efficient model of care when compared to the clinician-directed model, with significant cost savings to both the health service and to HNC consumers (total saving of $1901.10 AUD per patient; p < 0.001). The SwallowIT model also proved more cost-effective than the patient-directed model, yielding clinically significantly superior QoL at the end of (C)RT, for comparable costs. Overall, when compared to the alternate methods of service-delivery, SwallowIT provided a financially viable and cost-effective method for the delivery of intensive, prophylactic swallowing therapy to patients with HNC during (C)RT.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDeglutitionDeglutition DisordersFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOropharyngeal NeoplasmsSpeech-Language PathologyTelemedicineCost-effectivenessDeglutitionDeglutition disordersEconomic analysisHead and neck cancerProphylactic swallowing therapyTelepractice

Identifiers

PMID30515560
OpenAlexW2902624476

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.