Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39010277›Full record

ArticlePediatric blood & cancer2024

Impact of the Children's Oncology Group's supportive care clinical practice guideline endorsement program: An institutional survey.

Jordan Gilleland Marchak, Melissa P Beauchemin, Larisa Broglie, Katherine Patterson Kelly, Jennifer Seelisch, L Lee Dupuis, Children's Oncology Group Supportive Care Guidelines Task Force

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric blood & cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

7 authors.

Jordan Gilleland MarchakEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8747-7375
Melissa P BeaucheminColumbia University School of Nursing, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4058-1586
Larisa BroglieDepartment of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology/Blood and Marrow Transplant, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1674-048X
Katherine Patterson KellyDepartment of Nursing Science, Professional Practice, and Quality, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Jennifer SeelischChildren's Hospital London Health Sciences Centre, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
L Lee DupuisChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute and Department of Pharmacy, The Hospital for Sick Children; Lesley Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-1061
Children's Oncology Group Supportive Care Guidelines Task Force

Funding

NCTN BIQSFP ANBL1531 (NRT)U10CA180886 · NCI · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI Douglas S. Hawkins · 2014 to 2026
$390.6M
Towards a preventive cancer vaccine for children with constitutional mismatch repair deficiencyUG1CA189955 · NCI · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI BRAD H POLLOCK, Michael E. Roth · 2014 to 2026
$62.5M
Children's Oncology Group Cancer Control-Supportive Care, Nursing, and Pharmacy CommitteesNCI NIH HHS U10 CA180886NCI NIH HHS U10CA180886NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189955NCI NIH HHS UG1CA189955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupportive care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) facilitate the incorporation of the best available evidence into pediatric cancer care. We aimed to assess the impact of the work of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Supportive Care Guideline Task Force on institutional supportive care practices. PROCEDURE: An online survey was distributed to representatives at 209 COG sites to assess the awareness, use, and helpfulness of COG-endorsed supportive care CPGs. Availability of institutional policies regarding 13 topics addressed by current COG-endorsed CPGs was also assessed. Respondents described their institutional processes for developing supportive care policies.

resultsRepresentatives from 92 COG sites responded to the survey, and 78% (72/92) were "very aware" of the COG-endorsed supportive care CPGs. On average, sites had policies that addressed seven COG-endorsed supportive care CPG topics (median = 7, range: 0-12). Only 45% (41/92) of sites reported having institutional processes for developing supportive care policies. Of these, most (76%, 31/41) reported that the COG-endorsed CPGs have a medium or large impact on policy development. Compared with sites without processes for supportive care policy development, sites with established processes had policies on a greater number of topics aligned with current COG-endorsed CPG topics (mean = 6.6, range: 0-12 vs mean = 7.9, range: 2-12; p = 0.027).

conclusionsMost site respondents were aware of the COG-endorsed supportive care CPGs. Less than half of the COG sites represented in the survey have processes in place to implement supportive care policies. Improvement in local implementation is required to ensure that patients at COG sites receive evidence-based supportive care.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicChildHumansMedical OncologySurveys and QuestionnairesClinical practice guidelineshealthcare deliverypediatric cancersupportive care

Identifiers

PMID39010277
PMCPMC12359604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.