ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
Cost of care associated with utilization of telehealth in clinical trials.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, telehealth was incorporated into standard oncologic care and clinical trial operations. We sought to analyze whether telehealth changed cost of care compared to traditional clinical trial operations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of gynecologic oncology patients enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials at a National Cancer Institute designated center, comparing the cost of cancer care on trial pre-TELEhealth (9/30/2019 to 3/15/2020) versus during TELEhealth (3/16/2020 to 8/20/2020). Inclusion required trial participation during both study periods, ≥1 telehealth visit, and identifiable billing records. The analysis was from a healthcare sector perspective. Cost per patient per month on trial was calculated for scheduled (per protocol) and unscheduled (non-protocol) encounters using 2020 national Medicare reimbursement rates, not institution-specific prices. Pairwise t-tests between pre-TELE and TELE periods were performed. Results: Twenty-eight patients were included in the study. The majority of patients (93 %) had ovarian cancer. One patient (4 %) had uterine and 1 (4 %) had concurrent ovarian/uterine cancer. Most patients had advanced-stage disease at diagnosis (93 %). Mean cost per patient per month was similar in pre-TELE and TELE periods ($3797 vs. $4720, p = 0.064). There were no cost differences among scheduled or unscheduled encounters, office or ED visits, admissions, outpatient procedures, nor those billed to study sponsors or patient's insurer. Conclusions: Incorporating telehealth in gynecologic cancer clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase cost of care and may be a mechanism for decentralizing clinical trials, reducing barriers to trial participation, and improving the value of cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.