ArticleCancer research and treatment2023
Quality Assessment and Trend for Breast Cancer Treatment Practice across South Korea Based on Nationwide Analysis of Korean Health Insurance Data during 2013-2017.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alzheimer Disease in Breast Cancer Survivors.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Contrasting income-based inequalities in incidence and mortality of breast cancer in Korea, 2006-2015.Epidemiology and health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeQuality assessment of breast cancer treatment in South Korea showed the upward standardization of the grade since 2013, but treatment disparities still have existed. This study analyzed the five year trend between 2013 and 2017 in the assessment of breast cancer treatment practice using the Korean health insurance data. Materials and Methods: All the medical records including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy for 7,354 patients a year on average were evaluated. Twenty indices were consisted of one structural, 17 process-related, and 2 result-related factors. We calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) annually to determine the variation in adherence rate of evaluation indices according to the type of institution (advanced vs. general hospital vs. clinic).
resultsBased on the initial assessment in 2013, 10 out of 20 indicators showed significant variation among the types of institutions with a CV of less than 0.1%. Six of them had a CV decline of less than 0.1%. The CV was still 0.1% or higher in the four indicators, including the composition of professional staff, the implementation of target therapy, the average length of hospital stay, and the hospitalization cost. Regarding the first-grade of assessment, there was a statistically significant relationship between the institution type (p=0.029) and region (metropolitan vs. province, p<0.001).
conclusionThere were disparities in the structural and systemic treatment factors depending on the institutional type. The quality improvement of the regional institutions and multidisciplinary experts for breast cancer is necessary.
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.