Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33741466›Full record

ReviewRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2021

Brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A survey of UK provision of care and support.

Pauline Humphrey, Emma Dures, Peter Hoskin, Fiona Cramp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Development and refinement of patient care recommendations in brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer using nominal group technique workshops.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Pauline HumphreyRadiotherapy Department, Bristol Cancer Institute, Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, UK; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Glenside Campus, University of the West of England, UK. Electronic address: Pauline2.Humphrey@uwe.ac.uk.
Emma DuresFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Glenside Campus, University of the West of England, UK. Electronic address: Emma2.Dures@uwe.ac.uk.
Peter HoskinMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, UK. Electronic address: PeterHoskin@nhs.net.
Fiona CrampFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Glenside Campus, University of the West of England, UK. Electronic address: Fiona.Cramp@uwe.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeGynaecological brachytherapy can cause anxiety, distress and discomfort. It is not known how variation in delivery impacts women's experiences. To inform future research an online survey was carried out to identify variations in brachytherapy and support available to women receiving treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). MATERIALS AND

methodsAn online survey was sent to 44 UK brachytherapy centres using the Qualtrics® survey platform. It included questions about brachytherapy scheduling, inpatient/day case treatment, anaesthetic/analgesia, non-pharmacological support and health professionals' opinions regarding holistic care. A mixture of closed questions with pre-specified options and open questions were employed. Descriptive statistics were generated to identify variance in UK practice. Free text responses were analysed using inductive content analysis.

resultsResponses were received from 39/43 eligible centres (91% response rate). Brachytherapy was predominantly given on an inpatient basis at 65% and day case at 35% of centres. Eleven scheduling regimes were reported with typical duration of brachytherapy ranging from three to 52 h. The main categories identified in response to what worked well were: 'consistency of staff'; 'good information provision' and 'experienced/skilled/senior staff'. The main categories identified as needing improvement were: 'training of different staff groups' and 'follow up and support' with many suggestions for service improvements.

conclusionThe survey provided a comprehensive overview of brachytherapy services for LACC demonstrating wide variability in scheduling regimes, duration of treatment and holistic care. The findings support the need to explore women's experiences with a range of treatment regimes and anaesthesia and analgesia techniques to inform improvements to future clinical care.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomBrachytherapyCervical cancerSurvey

Identifiers

PMID33741466
PMCPMC8216428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.