Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37551222›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Adult Hospitalists' Knowledge of Radiation Oncology in an Independent Nonacademic Healthcare System in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Elvina C Lingas, Venu M Ganipisetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Elvina C LingasHospital Medicine, Presbyterian Hospital, Albuquerque, USA.
Venu M GanipisettiHospital Medicine, Presbyterian Hospital, Albuquerque, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation oncology (RO) plays a crucial role in cancer care; cancer patients often undergo their initial diagnostic study by general physicians. However, studies have shown that most physicians are uncomfortable referring cancer patients to radiation therapy (RT). To assess the knowledge of RO among non-oncology physicians, we sent invitations to complete an online survey that required the responders to self-rate their understanding of RT and objective assessment. The survey was targeted at hospitalists and primary care physicians. Forty physicians responded to the survey, and 89.7% practiced primarily as hospitalists, with 67% being Internal Medicine graduates. Fifty percent of physicians have referred patients to RO before, although more than 90% have not done additional CME (continuing medical education) in Oncology. More than 50% of recent graduates (one to five years post-residency) self-rated themselves as "not knowledgeable" when it comes referral process to RO as well as general knowledge regarding RT. Factors, such as "type of cancer," "patients' wishes," and "life expectancy," are most cited as factors influencing the decision for a referral.

Indexed as

cancer educationhospitalist medicinequality improvement researchradiation & medical oncologyradiation oncology education

Identifiers

PMID37551222
PMCPMC10404457

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.