Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31587707›Full record

Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2019

Work-Related Medical Rehabilitation in Cancer: A Cluster-Randomized Multicenter Study.

David Fauser, Julian Wienert, Bijan Zomorodbakhsch, Jan Schmielau, Irene Biester, Hans-Ulrich Krüger, Angelika Presl, Matthias Bethge

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Influencing factors analysis of adaptability of cancer patients to return-to-work.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

David FauserInstitute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck; Department of Psychology & Methods, University of Bremen; Paracelsus-Klinik am See, Bad Gandersheim; AMEOS Reha Klinikum, Ratzeburg; MediClin Rose Klinik, Horn-Bad Meinberg; Klinik Bavaria, Freyung.
Julian Wienert
Bijan Zomorodbakhsch
Jan Schmielau
Irene Biester
Hans-Ulrich Krüger
Angelika Presl
Matthias Bethge
University of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend rehabilitative measures to alleviate dis- turbances resulting from cancer and its treatment. To give cancer survivors further assistance in getting back to work, work-related medical rehabilitation is currently being tested in Germany. In this cluster-randomized, multicenter trial, we studied the efficacy of work-related medical rehabilitation compared with conventional medical rehabilitation (trial no. DRKS00007770 in the German Clinical Trials Registry).

methodsA total of 484 cancer survivors of working age who were candidates for rehabilitation were recruited and assigned at random to either the intervention group (IG; work-related medical rehabilitation) or the control group (CG). The primary end- point was self-assessed function in a role one year after the end of rehabilitation, as evaluated with the health-related quality of life questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30). Further endpoints included symptom and function scales, subjective ability to work, coping with illness, and return to work. Neither the medical personnel nor the subjects were blinded.

resultsOne year after the end of rehabilitation, data from 379 subjects who par- ticipated in the last follow-up survey were evaluated. The intervention and control groups did not differ significantly either in the primary endpoint of role function (IG = 60.8 vs. CG = 57.6 out of a maximum of 100 points; p = 0.204) or in any of the secondary endpoints. A last observation carried forward analysis yielded com- parable results. At 12 months, 28.5% of the subjects in the IG and 25.3% of those in the CG were still unable to work.

conclusionThis study did not reveal any significant clinically relevant advantage of work-related medical rehabilitation at one year. Future studies should determine whether a second period of rehabilitation might be helpful and whether selected subjects might benefit from the assistance of case managers beyond the period of rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Rehabilitation, VocationalAdultFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31587707
PMCPMC6804270
OpenAlexW2970168991

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.