ArticleBMC palliative care2020
Second opinions in medical oncology.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- Comorbidity, treatment toxicity and satisfaction with cancer care: an international cross-sectional study based on the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- A New Approach to Cancer Second Opinions: Overcoming the Challenges of Conventional Oncology Practice by Providing Education to Patients and Physicians.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Information and support for cancer patients and their relatives - evaluation of central contact point enquiries: a retrospective analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Real World Evidence of Care Delivery in AccessHope Data.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Outcome and characteristics of patients with adult grade 4 diffuse gliomas changing sites of treatment.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical and demographic predictors of survival for fibrolamellar carcinoma patients-A patient community, registry-based study.Hepatology communications · 2022Article
- Pyramidal Decision Support Framework Leverages Subspecialty Expertise across Enterprise to Achieve Superior Cancer Outcomes and Personalized, Precision Care Plans.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- After COVID-19, telemedicine may be used in addition to usual care and not in lieu of: Implications for health systems.International journal of cancer · 2021Article
- A qualitative study of teleconsultation practices among French oncologists in a post-COVID-19 period.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why.
methodsThe study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks.
resultsOf 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion.
conclusionsOur study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate.
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.