Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31656028›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020

A Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors.

Alicia Hawkins, Alysa Murphy, Michelle McNamara, Prasad L Gawade, Rajesh Belani, Michael A Kelsh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A multinational, drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim use in real-world setting in Europe.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A questionnaire survey on evaluation for penetration and compliance of the Japanese Guideline on Febrile Neutropenia among hematology-oncology physicians and surgeons.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alicia HawkinsAdelphi Research, Doylestown, PA, USA.
Alysa MurphyAdelphi Research, Doylestown, PA, USA.
Michelle McNamaraAdelphi Research, Doylestown, PA, USA.
Prasad L GawadeAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. pgawade@amgen.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3396-5349
Rajesh BelaniAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Michael A KelshAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Adelphi Laboratory Center · USAmgen (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to describe oncologists' perceptions and opinions about patient eligibility, guidelines, and barriers for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), overall and stratified by their affiliation with the Oncology Care Model (OCM). In May 2018, we invited and recruited practicing US oncologists from a national database for an online survey. Level of agreement was identified using a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 200 participating oncologists, 70 were OCM-affiliated. Overall, 65% of oncologists agreed or strongly agreed that all patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) should receive prophylactic G-CSF, and half agreed or strongly agreed that benefits of G-CSF outweigh the potential adverse effects. The most common barriers to G-CSF use for patients at high risk of FN included patient refusal (37.1% of OCM-affiliated oncologists vs. 21.5% of non-OCM-affiliated oncologists), not on protocol/not supported by guidelines (32.9% vs. 23.1%), lack of reimbursement to practice (30.0% vs. 15.4%), and concerns about insurance coverage (22.9% vs. 26.9%). More OCM-affiliated oncologists reported that their practices offer and strongly encourage adherence to a specific protocol for G-CSF use (49.2%) versus non-OCM oncologists (31.3%). Despite recommendations from national guidelines and strong evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials, only two thirds of oncologists agree or strongly agree that all patients at high risk of FN should receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Decisions about G-CSF prophylaxis may be affected by factors other than risk of FN, such as patient choice, practice protocols/guidelines, lack of reimbursement, and insurance coverage.

Indexed as

Drug UtilizationFebrile NeutropeniaGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansNeoplasmsOncologistsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorFebrile neutropeniaG-CSFGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorsOncology Care ModelPhysician survey

Identifiers

PMID31656028
PMCPMC6971139
OpenAlexW2981721553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.