Observational studyCancer medicine2020
Evaluating the appropriateness of chemotherapy in a low-resource cancer centre in sub-Saharan Africa.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Implications of Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and 5-Flurouracil Chemotherapy on Hippocampal-Dependent Cognition and Gut-Microbiome.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025Article
- Gasdermin D Plays an Oncogenic Role in Glioma and Correlates to an Immunosuppressive Microenvironment.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Decentralizing cancer care in sub-Saharan Africa through an integrated regional cancer centre model: The case of Kenya.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Setting Up a Medical Oncology Educational Program in Sub-Saharan Africa.Annals of global health · 2021Article
- Building a breast cancer detection and treatment platform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by integrating training, service and infrastructure development.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- Evaluating the appropriateness of chemotherapy in a low-resource cancer centre in sub-Saharan Africa.Cancer medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the appropriateness of chemotherapy use at the Oncology Department of the Bugando Medical Centre of Mwanza, Tanzania.
methodsThe study was an observational prevalence-based study designed to evaluate a single-chemotherapy cycle during a defined time period for a cross-section of patients at varying stages of their clinical history. The sample included 103 consecutive subjects who were treated during January-March 2017 and had at least one previous cycle. Chemotherapy treatment omissions, cycle delays, and dose reductions and their causes were recorded using a standard form that included demographic, anthropometric, and clinical items. The data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsThere were 59 males (57.3%) and 44 females (42.7%). Ninety-four patients were aged ≥18 years. Considering cancer type/site, there were 23 distinct groups of patients. The recorded number of drugs in the chemotherapy regimens varied between one and five. The median cycle number was three (range: 2-11). Sixty-eight (66.0%) patients were treated in a standard fashion. For the remaining, cycle delay and dose reduction were the most common cause for nonstandard treatment. Hematologic toxicity was responsible for the greater part of cycle delays, whereas dose reductions were accounted for by a larger spectrum of causes. Overall, toxicity explained 21/35 (60.0%) patients receiving nonstandard treatment. The distribution of toxic events was skewed toward grade 1 and grade 2.
conclusionsThe observed level of appropriateness of chemotherapy was encouraging. The proportion of patients experiencing severe toxic effects was lower than expected.
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.