ArticleCancer medicine2022
Knowledge and use of prognostic scales by oncologists and palliative care physicians in adult patients with advanced cancer: A national survey (ONCOPRONO study).
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary approach, continuous care and opioid management in cancer pain: case series and review of the literature.Drugs in context · 2023Article
- Knowledge and use of prognostic scales by oncologists and palliative care physicians in adult patients with advanced cancer: A national survey (ONCOPRONO study).Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- A Prospective Longitudinal Study to Demonstrate the Utility of the Palliative Prognostic Index in Forecasting the Short-term Survival of Patients with Advanced Cancer in India.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic scales exist to estimate patient survival in advanced cancer. However, there are no studies evaluating their use and practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate in a nationwide study the proportion of oncologists and palliative care physicians who had knowledge of these scales.
methodsA descriptive, national, cross-sectional study was conducted via an online questionnaire to oncologists and palliative care physicians across France.
resultsPalliative care physicians had better knowledge of the scales than oncologists (42.3% (n = 74) vs. 27.8% (n = 33), p = 0.015). The Palliative Performance Status (PPS) and Pronopall Scale were the best-known (51.4% (n = 55) and 65.4% (n = 70), respectively) and the most widely used (35% (n = 28) and 60% (n = 48), respectively). Improved training in the use of these scales was requested by 85.4% (n = 251) of participants, while 72.8% (n = 214) reported that they did not use them at all. Limited training and lack of consensus on which scale to use were cited as the main obstacles to use.
conclusionThis is the first national study on the use of prognostic scales in advanced cancer. Our findings highlight a need to improve training in these scales and to reach a consensus on scale selection.
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.