Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30582746›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2019

Sarah P Huepenbecker, Leping Wan, Andrea Leon, Diane Rosen, John Hoff, Lindsay M Kuroki, Katherine C Fuh, Matthew A Powell, David G Mutch, Graham A Colditz and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah P HuepenbeckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Leping WanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Andrea LeonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Diane RosenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mercy Hospital, St. Louis, MO, United States.
John HoffDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Lindsay M KurokiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Katherine C FuhDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Matthew A PowellDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
David G MutchDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Graham A ColditzInstitute for Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Andrea R HagemannDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Washington University in St. Louis · USMercy Hospital · USSaint Louis University · US

Funding

Worksite Policies and neighborhood Influences on Obesity and Cancer RiskU54CA155496 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2011 to 2016
$9.0M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA155496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine how obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) perceive the gynecologic health effects of obesity and to identify perceived obstacles to counseling. OB/GYNs with 3 St. Louis health systems were emailed a 46-question survey regarding physicians' role in counseling women on the health risks of obesity and barriers faced in achieving this counseling. Differences between respondents' gender, age, practice type, years in practice, and body mass index were assessed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Of 318 OB/GYNs emailed, 134 completed surveys, including 82 generalists and 52 subspecialists. 93% of respondents believed it was necessary to educate patients on health risks of obesity. 90% and 75%, respectively, cited diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer as teachable moments for counseling. The most frequently cited barriers to successful counseling were lack of time, referral services, and patient tools/information. Most did not believe they had adequate reimbursement (65%), training (53%) or educational resources (50%) to counsel patients. Survey answers differed by practice setting, gender, and provider age. Although most OB/GYN providers consider obesity counseling important, execution is hindered by perceived barriers that differ by provider gender, age, and practice type. For OB/GYNs, more effective weight management counseling will require better training and practice-specific strategies. Based on survey responses, better reimbursement combined with increased resources for appropriate referrals and cancer prevention counseling are needed in order to improve weight management implementation in OB/GYN. •The majority of OB/GYNs believe obesity counseling is important•Perceptions of obesity counseling differ based on provider/practice characteristics.•Lack of time, referral services, and patient tools are the biggest cited barriers to counseling.•Improved obesity counseling could improve downstream OB/GYN morbidities.

Identifiers

PMID30582746
PMCPMC6299124
OpenAlexW2903631276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.