ReviewCancers2025
The Impact of Implementing Indicators of Quality of Oncological Care on Improving Patient Outcomes: A Cross-Sectional Review of Experiences from Countries Using Indicators in the Quality Assessment Process.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring disparities in adherence to colorectal cancer clinical practice guidelines and associated survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Multimodal Management of Pain in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Mechanism-Based Approach.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of QIs in the pursuit of improving patient outcomes in oncological care has become a primary goal for many countries. The purpose of this cross-sectional review is to present the experiences of several countries that have implemented different strategies in using QIs to assess the quality of cancer care. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel have been pioneers in integrating QIs into their healthcare systems, which has led to significant improvements in the delivery of care. These indicators help assess adherence to clinical guidelines, timeliness of treatment, safety of practices, and overall patient survival. Data from these countries show that the use of QIs correlates with improved five-year survival rates, earlier diagnosis, better adherence to evidence-based treatment protocols, and increased patient satisfaction. For example, in the Netherlands and Germany, the introduction of quality cancer care programs has led to improved surgical outcomes and overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer. The United Kingdom and Denmark have reported improvements in waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, and in Israel, screening rates for breast and colorectal cancer increased after the introduction of QIs for monitoring these conditions. The current review highlights the fact that countries with robust reporting systems and national cancer registries with high levels of data completeness, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, were able to effectively monitor outcomes and adjust clinical practices accordingly. The findings suggest that implementing QIs in cancer care not only improves clinical outcomes but also promotes accountability and stimulates improved healthcare, ensuring better long-term patient care. This study highlights the value of adopting QIs as a global standard for assessing 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.