Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592032›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Adherence to interdisciplinary tumor board recommendations as an expression of quality-assured patient care: results of a bicentric German analysis.

Friederike Braulke, Kathrin Kober, Stefan Rieken, Tonia Brand, Tobias Hartz, Stefanie Seipke, Thomas Asendorf, Jörg Haier

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessment and monitoring by Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale: an observational study on cancer patients at home.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  4. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Friederike BraulkeComprehensive Cancer Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, von-Bar-Str. 2/4, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. friederike.braulke@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Kathrin KoberComprehensive Cancer Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, von-Bar-Str. 2/4, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Stefan RiekenDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Radiooncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Tonia BrandKlinisches Krebsregister Niedersachsen, Hannover, Germany.
Tobias HartzKlinisches Krebsregister Niedersachsen, Hannover, Germany.
Stefanie SeipkeComprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Thomas Asendorf *Institute of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Jörg Haier *Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEKrebsregister Saarland · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInterdisciplinary tumor boards (ITBs) represent a central part of standard cancer care defining a guidelines-guided treatment plan adapted to the patient's capabilities, comorbidities and wishes in a multi-professional team. The implementation rate of ITB recommendations can be monitored by structured adherence analyses. But (inter)national definitions how to measure the level of implementation are missing. Here, we present results of 4 years of ITB adherence analyses in a bicentric German Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC).

methodsBetween 2018 and 2021, for at least 1 month, the implementation rate of recommendations of 8 different ITBs of 2 CCC sites was evaluated manually according to harmonized criteria between both sites regarding the degree of implementation of ITB's recommendations.

resultsIn total, 1104 cases were analyzed (65% male, 35% female). Mean distance from patient's home to the CCC was 57 km (range 0.8-560.6 km). For 949 cases (86%) with known follow-up, the adherence rate was 91.9% (95% CI 0.9; 0.935). In 8.1%, ITB decisions were not implemented due to medical reasons (45.4%), patient's wish (35.1%) and unknown reasons (19.5%). Logistic regression revealed neither age (OR = 0.998, p = 0.90), nor gender (OR = 0.98, p = 0.92) or the distance from patient's home to the CCC (OR = 1.001, p = 0.54) were significantly associated with ITB adherence.

conclusionITB adherences analyses can serve as a quality management tool to monitor the implementation rate of ITB recommendations and to stay in contact with practitioners, other hospitals and state cancer registries to share data and resources in accordance with data protection requirements for continuously improvement of quality management and patient care.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient CareFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleQuality of Health CareAdherenceCancerCertificationQuality managementTumor board

Identifiers

PMID37592032
PMCPMC10602985
OpenAlexW4385955244

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.