ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Developing a platform to investigate the heterogeneity of outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe geographical variation in treatment patterns for patients with ovarian cancer is profound, long-standing and worrying. Although these variations were highlighted in a recent UK registry audit, granular data to provide explanations for these variations have been lacking.
methodsA consortium of six UK centres was generated to curate and submit data for all patients treated at their centre for a 2-year period. Descriptive statistics were combined with Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis to confirm the findings from the national registry audit and identify possible drivers of the heterogeneity previously described.
resultsRecords for 1117 patients treated in six centres in 2018 and 2019 were collated. Although there were differences in the clinical characteristics of patients between centres, these were not enough to account for the significant variation in survival outcomes between centres (p<0.001). Treatment rates varied between centres with between 30% and 76% of patients receiving combination therapy but in Cox models 'treatment centre' remained a predictor of 1 year survival independent of patient, tumour factors and treatment choice.
conclusionVariations in outcome seen between UK centres are not related solely to casemix but rather to the approach and ethos of each centre towards advanced ovarian cancer treatment options. Although important, differences in treatment patterns do not completely explain the variations seen and further work is required to understand the drivers of difference seen.
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.