Observational studyWomen's health (London, England)
Attention to bone health in follow-up of gynaecological cancers in tertiary care.
Observational study in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention and management of radiotherapy-related toxicities in gynecological malignancies. Position paper on behalf of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology).La Radiologia medica · 2024Guideline
- Review
- Sarcopenia: Body Composition and Gait Analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Opportunistic Bone Mineral Density Assessment on Staging Computed Tomography for Gynaecological Cancers.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWomen with gynaecological cancers are at an increased risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss, which impacts on their quality of life and overall survival. Clinical cancer follow-up reviews focus on cancer status and fail to attend to important health and quality-of-life issues. We questioned whether there was a care-gap between tertiary clinicians and primary care physicians in the management of bone health in this cohort. Significant care-gaps in relation to bone health have been demonstrated in other oncologic settings. The objective of this study was to determine the level of attention to bone health in the care of women living with and beyond gynaecological cancer at a tertiary referral centre for gynaecological oncology.
methodsRetrospective, observational cohort study of attention to bone health in the management and follow-up of gynaecological cancers.
resultsThis study shows that there has been suboptimal attention from the carers at a cancer centre to bone health during the oncological follow up of women undergoing treatment for gynaecological cancer. In those at particular risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (iatrogenic menopause and/or external beam pelvic radiotherapy), 52% of women had no reference to bone health in their notes, and 57% had no assessment of bone mineral density.
conclusionTertiary cancer carers may underestimate the importance of bone health or believe that it falls outside the remit of their gynaecologic oncology service. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are indicative of a true care gap and to gain insight into possible corrective measures.
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.