Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38965201›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2024

The Landscape of Care for Women Veterans with Cancer: An Evidence Map.

Rachel Pace, Karen M Goldstein, April R Williams, Kacey Clayton-Stiglbauer, Clare Meernik, Megan Shepherd-Banigan, Neetu Chawla, Haley Moss, Lesley A Skalla, Sarah Colonna and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Rachel PaceCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA. rachel.pace@va.gov.
Karen M GoldsteinCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.
April R WilliamsDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.
Kacey Clayton-StiglbauerDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Clare MeernikThe Cooper Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Megan Shepherd-BaniganCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.
Neetu ChawlaVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Haley MossDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.
Lesley A SkallaDuke University Medical Center Library and Archives, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Sarah ColonnaHuntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Michael J KelleyDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.
Leah L ZulligCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Healthcare System, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen are the fastest growing veteran group in the US and the number of women veterans (WVs) with cancer is rising; however, little is known about this population. Cancer care for WVs is complex and it is essential to understand their unique needs and care coordination challenges to provide evidence-based care. The purpose of this review is to map the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of literature describing cancer and its treatment among WVs.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) from inception through January, 2024. Publications were eligible that reported gender-specific data on any aspect of cancer care among WVs. Data was abstracted by a single investigator with over-reading.

resultsForty-six reports were included; 44 were observational and 19 had a women-only sample. There were no interventional reports and no qualitative reports had a patient sample. Breast cancer was the most commonly addressed (n = 19). There were six additional reports on sex-specific cancers. Many reports used large VA databases or previous trial data, creating the potential for patient overlap between reports. Among VA-specific areas of interest, only three reports evaluated the potential implications of racial differences and only two included a transgender population. No reports examined the effects of toxic exposures on cancer. Within the NCI Cancer Control Continuum, crosscutting areas were more commonly represented; over half (25) of the reports addressed epidemiology. There were few reports on focus areas and little overlap between focus and crosscutting areas. DISCUSSION: Existing literature provides an inadequate understanding of the population of WVs with cancer. There is scant information regarding the population of WVs with cancer, their care preferences or experiences, or how to best identify and address unmet healthcare needs. It is imperative to expand research to provide evidence-based care for this population.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsVeteransFemaleHumansUnited Statescancerevidence maphealth services researchneoplasmsVeterans healthwomen

Identifiers

PMID38965201
PMCPMC11347519

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.