ArticleWorld journal of clinical oncology2020
Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom.
Article in World journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Centralisation of Cancer Services Associated With Under-Treatment of Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer?-A National Population-Based Study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Beyond Performance Status.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2020Review
- The care of older cancer patients in the United Kingdom.Ecancermedicalscience · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described.
aimTo identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer.
methodsA web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) targeting health professionals (oncologists, cancer surgeons, geriatricians, nurses and allied health professionals) was distributed January-April 2016
results640 health care professionals responded. Only 14.1% often/always involved geriatricians and 52.0% often/always involved general practitioners in assessments. When wider assessments were used, they always/often influenced decision-making (40.5%) or at least sometimes (34.1%). But 30.5%-44.3% did not use structured assessment methods. Most clinicians favoured clinical history taking. Few used scoring tools and few wished to use them in the future. Most had urgent access to palliative care but only a minority had urgent access to other key supporting professionals (
conclusionThere is variability in assessment methods for older people with cancer across the United Kingdom and variation in perceived access to supporting services. Clinical history taking was preferred to scoring systems. Fostering closer links with geriatricians appears supported.
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.