SynthesisJCO clinical cancer informatics2021
Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- Economic Evaluation of GARDE: A Digital Health Platform for Population-Level Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- A knowledge-based clinical decision support system for personalized health examination items in China: design and evaluation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Usability, Engagement, and Report Usefulness of Chatbot-Based Family Health History Data Collection: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
- Temporal Trends in the Completeness of Epidemiological Variables in a Hospital-Based Cancer Registry of a Pediatric Oncology Center in Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Feasibility of an electronic patient-facing cancer family history tool in medically underserved populations.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCollection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH.
methodsA systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I
resultsThe comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%).
conclusionOur review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.
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.