Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32030627›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2020

Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review.

Nadia Corsini, Kim Neylon, Esther Jie Tian, Elminur Mahpirof, Amy McLaughlin, Susan Mcleod, Paul McNamara, Mary Metaxas, Sophia Minos, Rebecca Sharp and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Thai oncology nurses' perspectives toward survivorship care plan components and implementation for colorectal cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Nadia CorsiniRosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Kim NeylonRosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Esther Jie TianSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Elminur MahpirofSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Amy McLaughlinSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Susan McleodSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Paul McNamaraSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Mary MetaxasSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Sophia MinosSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Rebecca SharpSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Saravana KumarSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. saravana.kumar@unisa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4003-4411
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted.

resultsSeven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.

conclusionsThis systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCancer SurvivorsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesYoung AdultCancer survivorsCommunication toolSupportive careSurvivorshipSystematic reviewTreatment summary

Identifiers

PMID32030627
OpenAlexW3004715930

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.