ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022
Room for improvement in capturing cancer family history in a gynecologic oncology outpatient setting.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Pooled it
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- Translating Cancer Genetics Care: Digital Tools to Improve Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment for Patients With Limited English Proficiency.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation of GARDE: A Digital Health Platform for Population-Level Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in Women with Mismatch Repair-Proficient Endometrial Cancer.Genes · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The literature demonstrates that the quality of cancer family history (CFH) as currently collected in the outpatient setting is inadequate to assess disease risk. Prior to implementation of a web-based application for cancer family history collection, we aimed to review the quality of collected CFH in a gynecologic oncology outpatient clinic and determine contributing patient factors. Medical records were reviewed for 200 new patients presenting between 4/2019-7/2019. CFH was collected during the patient interview and evaluated for inclusion of eight elements based on standards set by the genetics community. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were utilized to evaluate the effect of patient characteristics on the number of relatives included in the CFH. Among our cohort of 200 patients, CFH was documented for 185 patients (92.5%). On univariate analysis, patients with a family history of cancer and prior genetic testing had significantly greater median number of relatives included in the CFH. On multivariable analysis, patients with family members with cancer had significantly more relatives included. Our data are consistent with the literature, suggesting that the current collection methods may not adequately capture all measures of a high quality CFH. Patients reporting no family history of cancer and those without prior genetic testing were least likely to have CFH that included key quality elements and these patients might benefit from health information technology CFH collection tools.
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.