ArticleBMJ open2022
Prehospital care for ovarian cancer in Catalonia: could we do better in primary care? Retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's experiences along the ovarian cancer diagnostic pathway in Catalonia: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of prehospital factors (diagnostic pathways, first presentation to healthcare services, intervals, participation in primary care) on 1-year and 5-year survival in people with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
designRetrospective quasi-population-based cohort study.
settingCatalan Integrated Public Healthcare System.
participantsPeople with EOC who underwent surgery with a curative intent in public Catalan hospitals between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data from primary and secondary care clinical histories and care processes in the 18 months leading up to confirmation (signs and symptoms at presentation, diagnosis pathways, referrals, diagnosis interval) of the EOC diagnosis (stage, histology type, treatment). Diagnostic process intervals were based on the Aarhus statement. 1-year and 5-year survival analysis was undertaken.
resultsOf the 513 patients included in the cohort, 67.2% initially consulted their family physician, while 36.4% were diagnosed through emergency services. In the Cox models, survival was influenced by advanced stage at 1 year (HR 3.84, 95% CI 1.23 to 12.02) and 5 years (HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.07 to 9.36), as was the type of treatment received, although this association was attenuated over follow-up. Age became significant at 5 years of follow-up. After adjusting for age, adjusted morbidity groups, stage at diagnosis and treatment, 5-year survival was better in patients presenting with gynaecological bleeding (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.79). Survival was not associated with a starting point involving primary care (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.09), diagnostic pathways involving referral to elective gynaecological care from non-general practitioners (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.26), or self-presentation to emergency services (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31).
conclusionsSurvival in EOC is not associated with diagnostic pathways or prehospital healthcare, but it is influenced by stage at diagnosis, administration of primary cytoreduction plus chemotherapy and patient age.
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.