ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2019
Evidence-Based Follow-up for Adults With Cancer.
Review 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 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences of cancer survivors for follow-up care: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- The safety and acceptability of using telehealth for follow-up of patients following cancer surgery: A systematic review.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Patterns of follow-up care in adult blood cancer survivors-Prospective evaluation of health-related outcomes, resource use, and quality of life.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Increased monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells in type 2 diabetes correlate with hyperglycemic and was a risk factor of infection and tumor occurrence.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Tumor abnormal protein as a promising biomarker for screening solid malignancies and monitoring recurrence and metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Article
- Misleading Conclusion.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objectives of follow-up care for cancer patients include psycho- social assistance and the detection of health problems. The concept of follow-up care rests on the assumption that the early detection of cancer recurrences and disease- or treatment-related complications is beneficial to patients. In this article, we provide an overview of the scientific evidence supporting current recommen- dations for the follow-up care of patients with colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and lymphoma.
methodsThis review is based on pertinent publications that were retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, supplemented by the authors' own experience in patient care and guideline creation.
resultsAs recurrences usually arise soon after initial treatment, the recommended follow-up interval is shorter in the first two years (3-6 months) and longer thereafter (6-12 months). The question of which particular follow-up studies should be per- formed has only been systematically analyzed in a few cases. For patients with colorectal cancer, colonoscopy is the most important study. Intensive follow-up care is associated with a statistically non-significant increase in the survival rate compared to minimal follow-up care (77.5% versus 75.8%). Intensive diagnostic follow-up studies have been found to lead to a doubling of the frequency of operations for recurrence with curative intent, yet without any effect on the average survival time. The findings in lung cancer are similar. However, after tumor resection with curative intent, regularly repeated CT scanning leads to a survival advantage. In lymphoma patients, the longer the interval from primary treatment, the greater the likelihood of treatment-related secondary illnesses. It is not yet known how follow-up care should be provided to these patients in order to help them best.
conclusionThe evidence supporting the efficacy of currently recommended modalities of follow-up care for cancer patients is weak. Until more data from clinical studies become available, the current guidelines should be followed.
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.