Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128599›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022

Review of Cancer-Specific Quality Measures Promoting the Avoidance of Low-Value Care.

Brandon L Ellsworth, Allan K Metz, Nicole M Mott, Ruby Kazemi, Michael Stover, Tasha Hughes, Lesly A Dossett

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quality of care assessment for non-small cell lung cancer patients: transforming routine care data into a continuous improvement system.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Brandon L EllsworthUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Allan K MetzUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Nicole M MottUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ruby KazemiUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael StoverUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Tasha HughesDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lesly A DossettDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. ldossett@umich.edu.

Funding

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 5 K08 HS026030-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith rising healthcare costs and campaigns aimed at avoiding low-value care, reducing cancer overtreatment has emerged as an important measure of cancer care quality. The extent to which avoidance of low-value care has been incorporated in cancer-specific quality measures is unknown. We aimed to identify and characterize cancer quality measures that promote the avoidance of low-value care, and identify gaps that may guide future measure development.

methodsWe systematically identified cancer-specific quality measures from leading quality measure organizations [e.g., National Quality Forum (NQF), National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC)]. We reviewed measures promoting the avoidance of low-value cancer care and subclassified them into disease site- or non-disease site-specific categories and the phase of care they targeted.

resultsWe reviewed 313 quality measures from six organizations. Of these, 18% (n = 55) focused on avoidance of low-value care. Quality measures focused on end-of-life care were most likely to focus on low-value care [n = 13 (50%)], followed by breast [n = 12 (18%)], lung [n = 9 (31%)], colon [n = 8 (20%)], prostate [n = 5 (38%)], general cancer care [n = 4 (3%)], symptoms and toxicities [n = 2 (40%)], and palliative cancer care [n = 2 (11%)] measures. The phases of care quality measures targeted included low-value screening [n = 5 (9%)], diagnostic testing and staging [n = 7 (13%)], treatment [n = 19 (34%)], surveillance [n = 6 (11%)], and clinical outcomes [n = 18 (33%)]. All categories had a treatment-specific quality measure, but no category had a representative measure for every phase of care. DISCUSSION: A minority of cancer quality measures are aimed at avoiding low-value care, and multiple evidence-based recommendations targeting low-value care have not been incorporated.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTerminal CareHumansLow-Value CareQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

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.