Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37958196›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Improving the Quality of Care for Cancer Patients through Oncological Second Opinions in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Feasibility of Patient-Initiated Second Opinions through a Health-Insurance Service Point.

Carla E Schulmeyer, Matthias W Beckmann, Peter A Fasching, Lothar Häberle, Henriette Golcher, Frank Kunath, Bernd Wullich, Julius Emons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. 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

8 authors.

Carla E SchulmeyerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1622-5250
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4885-8471
Lothar HäberleDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Henriette GolcherDepartment of Surgery, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3362-7857
Frank KunathDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, 95445 Bayreuth, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3951-6058
Bernd WullichDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg "Open Access Publication Funding"
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care, cancer patients can obtain a second medical opinion on their treatment. Validation of the diagnostic procedure (e.g., imaging), diagnosis, and treatment recommendation allows oncological therapy to be applied in a more targeted way, optimizing interdisciplinary care. This study describes patients who received second opinions at the Comprehensive Cancer Center for Erlangen-Nuremberg metropolitan area in Germany over a 6-year period, as well as the amount of time spent on second-opinion counseling.

methodsThis prospective, descriptive, single-center observational study included 584 male and female cancer patients undergoing gynecological, urologic, or general surgery who sought a second medical opinion. The extent to which the first opinion complied with standard guidelines was assessed solely descriptively.

resultsThe first opinion was in accordance with the guidelines and complete in 54.5% of the patients, and guideline compliant but incomplete in 13.2%. The median time taken to form a second opinion was 225 min, and the cancer information service was contacted by patients an average of eight times.

conclusionsThe initial opinion was guideline compliant and complete in every second case. Without a second opinion, the remaining patients would have been denied a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation. Obtaining a second opinion gives patients an opportunity to receive a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation and enables them to benefit from newer, individualized therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Establishing patient-initiated second opinions via central contact points appears to be a feasible option for improving guideline compliance.

Indexed as

gastrointestinal cancergynecologic cancersarcomasecond medical opinionurologic cancer

Identifiers

PMID37958196
PMCPMC10647700

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.