Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32815087›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2021

Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review.

J A M Vos, T Wieldraaijer, H C P M van Weert, K M van Asselt

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients' perspective.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Preferences of healthcare providers regarding future follow-up care for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer: A discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Diagnosis and management of cancer recurrence: a clinical update for GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J A M VosDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.a.m.vos@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-8171
T WieldraaijerDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
H C P M van WeertDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
K M van AsseltDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer survivorship care is traditionally performed in secondary care. Primary care is often involved in cancer management and could therefore play a more prominent role. PURPOSE: To assess outcomes of cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies on cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care were included. A narrative synthesis was used for three distinctive outcomes: (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) costs.

resultsSixteen studies were included: 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to heterogeneity. Most studies reported on solid tumors, like breast (N = 7) and colorectal cancers (N = 3). Clinical outcomes were reported by 10 studies, patient-reported by 11, and costs by 4. No important differences were found on clinical and patient-reported outcomes when comparing primary- with secondary-based care. Some differences were seen relating to the content and quality of survivorship care, such as guideline adherence and follow-up tests, but there was no favorite strategy. Survivorship care in primary care was associated with lower societal costs.

conclusionsOverall, cancer survivorship care in primary care had similar effects on clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with secondary care, while resulting in lower costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivorship care in primary care seems feasible. However, since the design and outcomes of studies differed, conclusive evidence for the equivalence of survivorship care in primary care is still lacking. Ongoing studies will help provide better insights.

Indexed as

Secondary Health CareSurvivorshipAdenocarcinomaAgedCancer SurvivorsFemaleHumansMelanomaPancreatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeSkin NeoplasmsCancer survivorship carePrimary careSecondary careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32815087
PMCPMC7822798
OpenAlexW3049846243

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.