Observational studyPloS one2022
Cancer patients' experiences of the diagnosis and treatment of incidental pulmonary embolism (a qualitative study).
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician perspectives on antithrombotic therapy management in advanced cancer: a multinational qualitative study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Patient Journey Maps to Improve Treatment Adherence in Chronic Comorbidities: A Narrative Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Best evidence summary on anticoagulant management in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Quality of life in oncological patients with venous thromboembolic disease.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of symptomatic cancer-associated thrombosis often causes distress and alarm for patients, especially for those unaware of the risk, or the signs and symptoms to look out for. There are few data about cancer patients' experiences of incidentally diagnosed pulmonary embolism (IPE), where lack of warning (recognised signs, symptoms) may cause delayed diagnosis and aggravate distress.
objectivesTo explore cancer patients' experience of the diagnosis of and living with incidental pulmonary embolism treated with anticoagulation.
methodsA qualitative study using modified grounded theory approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of a mixed- methods prospective observational survey study of consenting patients with IPE. Data were subjected to thematic analysis. The qualitative findings are presented.
findingsEleven participants were interviewed (mean age 68.3 years, range 38-82 years; various forms of cancer and stages). Three major themes and one cross-cutting theme were generated. Theme (1): IPE is experienced in the context of cancer and concomitant comorbidities. Issues are understood in the shadow of-and often overshadowed by-current serious illness. Theme (2): Being diagnosed with IPE. Misattribution to cancer or other comorbidities caused delay in help-seeking and diagnosis. Theme (3): Coping with anticoagulation. Participants' incorporated anticoagulation treatment and its effects into their daily routine with acceptance and stoicism. Finally, the cross-cutting theme relates to a lack of information and uncertainty, contributing to distress throughout the experience.
conclusionThe diagnosis of IPE was upsetting and unexpected. Expert and timely information was valued by those with IPE. Education called for about the increased risk of cancer-associated thrombosis and the signs and symptoms to be aware of.
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.