ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2020
Impact on Quality of Documentation and Workload of the Introduction of a National Information Standard for Tumor Board Reporting.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The initiation of the second-step intradisciplinary tumor board discussion and its impact on treatment decision. Retrospective data analysis of 12 years' experience in a tertiary oncology center.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Opportunities for personalised follow-up in breast cancer: the gap between daily practice and recurrence risk.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022Observational
- Prevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association With Overall Survival.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Clinical decision trees support systematic evaluation of multidisciplinary team recommendations.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
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
purposeTumor boards, clinical practice guidelines, and cancer registries are intertwined cancer care quality instruments. Standardized structured reporting has been proposed as a solution to improve clinical documentation, while facilitating data reuse for secondary purposes. This study describes the implementation and evaluation of a national standard for tumor board reporting for breast cancer on the basis of the clinical practice guideline and the potential for reusing clinical data for the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR).
methodsPreviously, a national information standard for breast cancer was derived from the corresponding Dutch clinical practice guideline. Using data items from the information standard, we developed three different tumor board forms: preoperative, postoperative, and postneoadjuvant-postoperative. The forms were implemented in Amphia Hospital's electronic health record. Quality of clinical documentation and workload before and after implementation were compared.
resultsBoth draft and final tumor board reports were collected from 27 and 31 patients in baseline and effect measurements, respectively. Completeness of final reports increased from 39.5% to 45.4% (
conclusionThis study shows implementation of a national standard for tumor board reports improves quality of clinical documentation, without increasing clinical workload. Simultaneously, our work enables data reuse for secondary purposes like cancer registration.
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.