Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33763728›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Impacts on health outcomes and on resources utilization for anticancer drugs injection at home, a complex intervention: a systematic review.

Bénédicte Mittaine-Marzac, Emmanuel Bagaragaza, Joël Ankri, Philippe Aegerter, Matthieu De Stampa

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Home Cancer Care Research: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis (1990-2021).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Bénédicte Mittaine-MarzacHospitalization At Home - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 14, rue Vésale, 75005, Paris, France. benedicte.mittaine-marzac@aphp.fr.
Emmanuel BagaragazaCESP - Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, U1018 INSERM UPS Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Hôpital Paul Brousse 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier 94807 Villejuif Cedex Université Versailles St-Quentin, Paris, France.
Joël AnkriCESP - Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, U1018 INSERM UPS Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Hôpital Paul Brousse 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier 94807 Villejuif Cedex Université Versailles St-Quentin, Paris, France.
Philippe AegerterCESP - Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, U1018 INSERM UPS Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Hôpital Paul Brousse 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier 94807 Villejuif Cedex Université Versailles St-Quentin, Paris, France.
Matthieu De StampaHospitalization At Home - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 14, rue Vésale, 75005, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs hospital-based home care is a complex intervention, we critically appraised the key elements that could ensure the completeness of assessment and explain the heterogeneity of the literature results about the comparison between home and hospital setting for the anticancer drugs injection within the same standards of clinical care.

methodsSystematic review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (Cinahl) searched to February 1, 2019, and combined with grey literature. Methodological quality has been rated using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies" developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHHP) in addition to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement for economic studies and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist for qualitative studies.

resultsOf 400 records identified, we identified 13 relevant studies (nine quantitative and four mixed-method studies). The quality of studies was hardly strong. The home-based anticancer injection involved highly heterogeneous home care interventions that generally kept a strong link with the hospital setting. The study schemes limited the comparison of clinical outcomes (OS, PFS, toxicity). Unlike the quality of life remaining similar, patients preferred to be treated at home. Cost savings were in favor of Hospital at Home, but the charge categories used to compare or the home intervention were heterogeneous and rarely integrating relatives' duties and hospital staff's time. Qualitative studies highlighted about benefits and barriers of home.

conclusionThe current state of evidence shows as it still remains difficult to appraise the anticancer injection at home when considering the details of this complex intervention, the role of each stakeholder, and the missing data.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsHome Care ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeAntineoplastic AgentsAnticancerHealth economicsHospital At HomeOrganization of health servicesPublic health

Identifiers

PMID33763728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.