Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41711795›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Clinician Nudge to Gynecologic Oncology Referral at Suspected Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis: A Pilot Study.

Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith, Shivan J Mehta, Tessa Cook, Charlie Chambers, Shavon Rochester, Hanna Zafar, Lisa Jones, Elizabeth A Howell, Anne Marie McCarthy, Justin Bekelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Anna Jo Bodurtha SmithDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7692-773X
Shivan J MehtaLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tessa CookPenn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Charlie ChambersDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Shavon RochesterDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Hanna ZafarPenn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lisa JonesDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Elizabeth A HowellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anne Marie McCarthyPenn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Justin BekelmanLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionOnly two-thirds of patients with ovarian cancer ever see a gynecologic oncologist. Our objective was to examine the feasibility of an electronic health record-based nudge to clinicians for referral to gynecologic oncology at suspected ovarian cancer by imaging.MethodsWe developed a nudge, a short behavioral economics informed best practice advisory with a pended referral order for gynecologic oncology, for primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrician/gynecology clinicians for when a patient had a O-RADS 4 or 5 lesion on imaging and had not already seen gynecologic oncology. In 2024, clinicians were sent the nudge within 2 business days of a patient's abnormal imaging through the electronic health record. Our primary outcome was referral rate to gynecologic oncology compared to a historic cohort of patients with O-RADS 4 or 5 lesions from 2020-2023.ResultsIn this prospective cohort study, we sent 20 clinician nudges for gynecologic oncology referral; six clinicians (30%) responded that the nudge changed their referral behavior. The 90-day referral rate was 75% compared to historic baseline of 61%. In the pilot, 92% patients undergoing surgery for complex adnexal mases had surgery with gynecologic oncology compared to historic baseline of 82%. One in four patients in the pilot were diagnosed with cancer, all early-stage disease.ConclusionsA clinician nudge for gynecologic oncology referral at suspected ovarian cancer diagnosis was acceptable and associated with 75% referral rate. A clinician nudge standardizes gynecologic oncology referral and may improve early detection of ovarian cancer. A randomized controlled trial of the clinician nudge is warranted.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationAgedElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGynecologistsGynecologyHumansMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective Studiesbehavioral economicsclinician behaviorgynecologic oncologyO-RADSovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID41711795
PMCPMC12924968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.