ArticleGynecologic oncology2020
A fellow-run clinic achieves similar patient outcomes as faculty clinics: A safe and feasible model for gynecologic oncology fellow education.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referral to and delivery of gynecologic oncology care.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFellow involvement in patient care is important for education, but effect on patient care is unclear. Our aim was to compare patient outcomes in gynecologic oncology attending clinics versus a fellow training clinic at a large academic medical center.
methodsA retrospective review of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients from six attending clinics and one faculty-supervised fellow clinic was used to analyze differences based on patient demographics, cancer characteristics, and practice patterns. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), postoperative complications and chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests.
resultsOf 159 patients, 76 received care in the attending clinic and 83 in the fellow clinic. Patients in the fellow clinic were younger, less likely to be Caucasian, and more overweight, but cancer site and proportion of advanced stage disease were similar. Both clinics had similar rates of moderate to severe adverse events related to surgery (15% vs. 8%, p = .76), chemotherapy (21% vs. 23%, p = .40), and radiation (14% vs. 17%, p = .73). There was no difference in median RFS in the fellow compared to attending clinic (38 vs. 47 months, p = .78). OS on both univariate (49 months-fellow clinic, 60 months-attending clinic vs. p = .40) and multivariate analysis [hazard ratio 1.3 (0.57, 2.75), P = .58] was not significantly different between groups.
conclusionsA fellow-run gynecologic oncology clinic designed to provide learning opportunities does not compromise patient outcomes and is a safe and feasible option for fellow education.
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.