Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35717191›Full record

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.

Jessica Paken, Cyril D Govender, Mershen Pillay, Vikash Sewram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessica PakenDiscipline of Audiology, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa. pakenj@ukzn.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5282-6144
Cyril D GovenderDiscipline of Audiology, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9638-8729
Mershen PillayDiscipline of Audiology, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8789-8439
Vikash SewramAfrican Cancer Institute, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, P.O. Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. vsewram@sun.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4547-7270
University of KwaZulu-Natal · ZAMassey University · NZWestern Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

Oticon Fonden 15-3622South African Medical Research Council National Health Scholarship Programme
6 · The paper itself

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

Antineoplastic AgentsHearing LossOtotoxicityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCisplatinCohort StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinAudiological assessmentCervical cancerCisplatinHearing lossMonitoring programmeOtotoxicitySouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID35717191
PMCPMC9206275
OpenAlexW4283079750

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.