ArticleGynecologic oncology2025
Disparities in facility-level adoption of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2025. 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.
- [Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFacility-level disparities in the adoption of minimally invasive (MIS) interval debulking surgery (IDS) among Commission-on-Cancer-accredited programs in the United States were examined.
methodsPatients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (2010-2021) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IDS were identified in the National Cancer Database. Analytical periods were categorized as the preadoption (2010 to 2014) and postadoption (2015 to 2021) periods. We defined "Adopter" facilities as those that significantly increased their use of MIS for IDS after 2015 and "non-adopter" facilities as those that restricted the use of this approach after 2015. Hospital-level variation in the use of IDS via MIS was estimated and then adopter programs were matched with non-adopter programs. We examined the associations between characteristics of interest-Black-serving (top 5 %), serving a high proportion of uninsured patients (top 5 %), high-volume (top quartile), and academic-and the tendency to perform IDS using logistic regressions.
resultsWe identified 5464 patients treated in 141 adopter facilities and 4820 patients treated in 141 non-adopter facilities. Adopter facilities were less likely than non-adopter facilities to be Black-serving (odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95 % CI, 0.55-0.79; P < 0.001) and to have a high proportion of uninsured patients (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.61-0.87, P < 0.001) and more likely to be high-volume centers (OR, 1.48; 95 % CI, 1.35-1.60; P < 0.001) and academic institutions (OR, 1.89; 95 % CI, 1.74-2.04, P < 0.001).
conclusionsAs MIS IDS is adopted in the United States, minoritized patients may have unequal access depending on where they receive 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.