Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32274639›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020

Analysis of motives and patient satisfaction in oncological second opinions provided by a certified university breast and gynecological cancer center.

Christian R Loehberg, Julia Meyer, Lothar Häberle, Carolin C Hack, Sebastian Jud, Alexander Hein, Marius Wunderle, Julius Emons, Paul Gass, Peter A Fasching and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. 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

16 authors.

Christian R LoehbergDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. christian.loehberg@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0602-9544
Julia MeyerDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Lothar HäberleDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Carolin C HackDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sebastian JudDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Alexander HeinDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Marius WunderleDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Paul GassDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sainab EgloffsteinOffice of the CCC Erlangen-EMN (Comprehensive Cancer Center of the European Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg-Erlangen), Erlangen, Germany.
Jessica KrebsPsychosomatic and Psychotherapeutic Department, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany.
Yesim ErimPsychosomatic and Psychotherapeutic Department, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael P LuxDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sonja WasnerDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Universitaetsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSecond opinions in oncology are becoming increasingly important in an era of more complex treatments and a growing demand for information by patients. Therefore, we analyzed their effects and influencing factors like patients' motives, subjective extent of information and satisfaction with communications.

methodsThis prospective study evaluated second opinions for patients with breast cancer or gynecological malignancy. The patients received a questionnaire before and two months after, which inquired expectations, reasons, and satisfaction with the second opinion and the attending physicians.

resultsA total of 164 patients were included and the majority had breast cancer (75.0%). Receiving the second opinion made 89.7% feel better informed, their need for information decreased (from 75.3% to 39.2%, P < 0.0001), and satisfaction with doctor-patient communications increased (from 61.9 to 91.8%, P = 0.0002). There were various reasons for requesting a second opinion, e.g., the extremely stressful situation of a cancer diagnosis, hope for change in the treatment recommendation or dissatisfaction with the initial physicians.

conclusionsSecond opinions can lead to significantly greater patient satisfaction, meeting the need for information and leading to better management of patients in the extremely stressful situation of a cancer diagnosis. Doctor-patient communications play a key role.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansMiddle AgedMotivationPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesUniversitiesBreast cancerDoctor–patient communicationGynecological malignancyOncology centerPatient satisfactionSecond opinion

Identifiers

PMID32274639
PMCPMC7181428

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.