ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021
Radiation therapist-led telephone follow-up: identifying patients who require post-treatment care.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practical recommendations for the management of radiodermatitis: on behalf of the ESTRO RTT committee.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Guideline
- Radiation therapist-led telephone follow-up: identifying patients who require post-treatment care.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiation therapists implemented telephone follow-up (TFU) in 2015 as an additional point of care post-treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether TFU identified patients who required additional post-treatment care before the next scheduled review.
methodsBetween January 2015 and July 2016, all patients who were prescribed curative intent treatment aged 18 years or over were called 10 days post-radiation therapy (RT). Eight questions were developed and included asking patients how they were coping, if their side effects were improving, if they needed to contact the hospital and if more dressings were required. Patients who could not be contacted after two attempts were excluded from the study. Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) were used to analyse the responses.
resultsData were collected from 850 patients. A total of 28/846 (3%) of patients reported they were not coping after RT, with 26/830 (3%) reporting their side effects were getting worse. A total of 97/826 (12%) of patients felt they needed to contact the hospital because they were unwell. This study identified 104/677 (15%) of patients who responded required more dressings, with 67/104 (65.7%) and 10/104 (9.8%) of this cohort identified in the breast, and head and neck groups, respectively.
conclusionRadiation therapist-led TFU has shown to be beneficial in identifying a small cohort of breast and head and neck cancer patients who required additional care post-radiation treatment.
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.