ArticleBMC health services research2022
Cisplatin-associated ototoxicity: perspectives from a single institution cervical cancer cohort and implications for developing a locally responsive monitoring programme in a public healthcare setting.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ototoxicity Associated with Antineoplastic Agents in the Pediatric Population: An Evidence-Based Review of Auditory Monitoring Strategies and Contemporary Diagnostic Frameworks-Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cisplatin during radiation for head and neck cancer: insights from NRG Oncology experience.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
- Comparative Study of the Quality of Life of Patients With Ototoxicity Due to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy, With Hearing Aid Versus Those Without: Study Protocol for a Randomized Pilot Study-The PROTOTOX Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Mobile Audiometry for Use in Ototoxicity Monitoring Programs: A Scoping Review.Journal of audiology & otology · 2025Review
- A Cross-Sectional, Descriptive Qualitative Study of Information Counselling During Tuberculosis Treatment in South Africa: Awareness of XDR-TB Patients on Ototoxic Effects.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Platinum-induced ototoxicity and hearing impairment in children and adolescents.Drugs in context · 2025Review
- FDA-Approved Tedizolid Phosphate Prevents Cisplatin-Induced Hearing Loss Without Decreasing Its Anti-tumor Effect.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Article
- Practice of Monitoring Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity by Audiology, ENT, and Oncology Specialists: A Survey-Based Study in a Single Italian Medical Center.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Audiologists' perceived value of ototoxicity management and barriers to implementation for at-risk cancer patients in VA: the OtoMIC survey.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOtotoxicity monitoring is uncommon in South Africa, despite the increased use of ototoxic medication to manage the burden of disease in the country. The successful implementation of such a protocol requires cognisance of contextual realities and multiple dimensions for consideration from both patients and service providers. As part of an ongoing cohort study on cisplatin-associated ototoxicity and efforts to better inform the implementation of such programmes, the perspectives of cervical cancer patients and healthcare workers towards ototoxicity monitoring were assessed.
methodsThis concurrent-triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in South Africa. Self-reported questionnaires from patients (n = 80) and healthcare personnel comprising clinicians, oncology nurses, pharmacists, and radiotherapists (n = 32), results of audiological evaluations, researcher field notes, and estimated patient and service provider costs contributed to data for this study. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, comparison of test characteristics and deductive thematic analysis.
resultsThe ototoxicity monitoring programme was positively received by the participants, with 90.6% of healthcare personnel and 89% of patients reporting it to be beneficial. The clinicians (76.6%) were identified as the main providers of information on the effects of chemotherapy medication and made the necessary referrals for audiological evaluation. The approximate cost of setting up such a programme included purchase of equipment (US56 700) and the appointment of an audiologist (US 26 250). The approximate costs to patients included transport costs (US$ 38) and the loss of income for the day (US 60), calculated at the minimum wage per hour, if employed. Creative appointment scheduling, easy facility access and detailed locally comprehensible couselling improved patient compliance to the programme. Whilst the sequential use of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) criteria aided in an evidence-informed approach to aural rehabilitation, DPOAEs and speech discrimination displayed low sensitivity (range 1.45% - 22.39%) but high specificity (range 77.78% - 100%) when identifying ototoxic change.
conclusionThis novel study, through a 'real-world' experience, has revealed that an ototoxicity monitoring programme is feasible in South Africa, through meaningful engagements with- and considerations from- patients and service providers regarding planning, delineation of responsibilities and cost implications. The findings can potentially serve as a roadmap for other limited resource environments.
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.