Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38094163›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Michael Jefford, Jon D Emery, Andrew James Martin, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Karolina Lisy, Eva Grunfeld, Mustafa Abdi Mohamed, Dorothy King, Niall C Tebbutt, Margaret Lee and 7 more

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

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael JeffordDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jon D EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew James MartinNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard De Abreu LourencoCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.
Karolina LisyDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Eva GrunfeldDepartment of Community and Family Medicine and Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, University of Toronto, Canada.
Mustafa Abdi MohamedDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Dorothy KingDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Niall C TebbuttOlivia Newton John Cancer Centre, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Margaret LeeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Western Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ashkan MehrnejadDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Adele BurgessOlivia Newton John Cancer Centre, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Julie MarkerPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group, Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Renee EgginsNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joseph CarrelloNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hayley ThomasNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Penelope SchofieldDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre · AUOntario Institute for Cancer Research · CAPrimary Care Collaborative Clinical Trials Group · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AUWestern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Indexed as

Colorectal neoplasmsGeneral practiceModel of careRandomised controlled trialShared careSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID38094163
PMCPMC10716007
OpenAlexW4389158384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.