Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37154829›Full record

ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

A review of unplanned admissions in head and neck cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment.

Emer Fahy, Rachel C Brooker, Jason C Fleming, Joanne M Patterson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prophylactic vs. reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis of survival and supportive care outcomes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emer FahySpeech and Language Therapy, The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trusts, 65 Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L7 8YA, UK. efahy@nhs.net.
Rachel C BrookerThe Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trusts, Liverpool, UK.
Jason C FlemingLiverpool Head & Neck Centre, Head and Neck Surgery, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Aintree Hospital, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK.
Joanne M PattersonSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Population Health/Liverpool Head and Neck Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimNon-surgical treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) often results in severe toxicities, which are detrimental to a patient's health and quality of life. There is limited published UK data on unplanned hospital admissions and reasons associated with admission. We aim to identify frequencies and reasons for unplanned hospital admissions, highlighting those patient groups who are most vulnerable.

methodsA retrospective study of unplanned hospital admissions of HNC patients receiving non-surgical treatment was completed. An inpatient admission was defined as ≥ 1 night spent in the hospital. To test potential demographic and treatment predictors of inpatient admission, a multiple regression model was constructed using the endpoint measure (unplanned admission), as the dependent variable.

resultsA cohort of 216 patients was identified over a 7-month period, and 38 of these patients (17%) required an unplanned admission. Treatment type was the only statistically significant predictor of in-patient admission. The majority of admissions were patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (58%) with predominant reasons for admission being nausea and vomiting (25.5%) and decreased oral intake/dehydration (30%). Of the patients admitted, 12 had a prophylactic PEG placed pre-treatment, and 18 of 26 admitted without prophylactic PEG required nasogastric tube feeding during their admission. DISCUSSION: Almost one-fifth of HNC patients over this time period required hospital admission; the majority of which can be attributed to treatment toxicities when receiving CRT. This is concurrent with other studies which review the impact of radiotherapy versus CRT. Increased support and monitoring, particularly focused on nutrition, are required for patients with HNC who receive CRT. KEY MESSAGE: This article describes a retrospective review of a patient undergoing non-surgical treatment for head and neck cancer. These patients frequently require unplanned hospital admission. The results indicate that patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy are most vulnerable to deterioration and additional support focused on nutrition for these patients is indicated.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsQuality of LifeChemoradiotherapyEnteral NutritionHospitalizationHumansRetrospective StudiesChemoradiotherapyHead and neck cancerOncologyUnplanned admission

Identifiers

PMID37154829
PMCPMC10165288
OpenAlexW4375862807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.