ArticleBJGP open2022
Multicentre oncology clinical trials in primary health care in Cuba: evaluation of programme implementation in Villa Clara Province, 2010-2020.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Center of Molecular Immunology of Cuba has developed a programme for the conducting of multicentre oncology clinical trials in primary healthcare centres since 2009.
aimTo evaluate the ability to conduct oncology clinical trials in primary health care. DESIGN &
settingA longitudinal, prospective, analytical study was developed between July 2010 and August 2020 in the Villa Clara province.
methodStructure, process, and outcome indicators were evaluated by the methods of a structured interview, direct observation, documentary observation, and databases analysis. The investigators' curricula vitae, the investigator site file, minutes of workshops, the monitoring reports, the clinical trial training records, and databases were employed as sources of information. The following criteria were considered adequate: when the indicator met the standard; and not adequate: when the indicator did not meet the standard.
resultsThe six structure indicators reached adequate results and showed that the programme has allowed building of capacities to conduct clinical trials in primary care. The eight processes indicators and two outcome indicators were considered adequate too. Trials conducted in primary care showed better indicators of patient recruitment than secondary care. Both scenarios showed similar behaviour for the process indicators: retention, protocol compliance, and safety. Survival and satisfaction with health services were also comparable in both scenarios.
conclusionThe evaluation of the programme showed adequate indicators for conducting oncology clinical trials in primary care in Villa Clara and these were comparable to those determined in the secondary care.
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.