Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35144440›Full record

ArticleThe South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings2022

Ototoxicity monitoring in South African cancer facilities: A national survey.

Katerina Ehlert, Barbara Heinze, De Wet Swanepoel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Trends in ototoxicity monitoring among cisplatin-treated patients with cancer.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and practices in managing ototoxicity in children with cancer.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
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

3 authors.

Katerina EhlertDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; and, Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Faculty of Healthcare Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria. katerina.ehlert@smu.ac.za.
Barbara Heinze
De Wet Swanepoel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational information regarding ototoxicity monitoring practices are limited for patients undergoing chemotherapy in South Africa.

objectivesTo determine (1) the national status of ototoxicity monitoring implemented in private and public cancer facilities, (2) the knowledge and ototoxicity monitoring approaches implemented, and (3) reported challenges.

methodA descriptive quantitative survey was conducted in public and private oncology units and audiology referral clinics. Private (60%) and public (43%) oncology units that provide platinum-based chemotherapy in South Africa and audiology referral units (54%) were: (1) surveyed telephonically to determine if ototoxicity monitoring takes place; and (2) a self-administered survey was sent to qualifying oncology units and audiology referral clinics.

resultsAll public oncology units reported that ototoxicity monitoring only occurs on referral and is not standard practice. All private oncology units indicated that monitoring is on a patient self-referral basis when symptoms occur. Poor awareness of ototoxicity monitoring best practice guidelines was reported by all oncology units and 14% of audiology referral clinics. Audiology referral clinics reported adequate knowledge of ototoxicity protocols although they are not widely used with only 43% following best practice guidelines. The most prominent challenges reported by participants was referral system (67% oncology units; 57% audiology referral clinics), environmental noise (83% oncology units; 86% audiology referral clinics) and the compromised status of cancer patients (67% oncology units; 57% audiology referral clinics).

conclusionOtotoxicity monitoring is not routinely implemented across oncology units in South Africa. Multidisciplinary teamwork and a simplified national ototoxicity monitoring protocol may improve hearing outcomes for patients.

Indexed as

AudiologyNeoplasmsOtotoxicityHearingHearing TestsHumansSouth Africacancerchemotherapyhearing lossoncologyototoxicityototoxicity monitoringototoxicity monitoring protocolsplatinum-based compounds

Identifiers

PMID35144440
PMCPMC8831968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.