ReviewThe oncologist2026
Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.
Review in The oncologist, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-initiated second opinions have become increasingly common in recent years. However, the frequency, motivations and advantages/disadvantages of this approach remain unclear. This study assessed the incidence and impact of patient-initiated second opinions in oncology patients.
methodsLiterature searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on patient-initiated second opinions in oncology patients published between 06/01/2004 and 06/01/2024. Selected publications evaluated the frequency, patient characteristics and motivating factors of patient-initiated second opinions and their impact on diagnoses, treatment, prognoses and patient satisfaction.
resultsSixty peer-reviewed publications were included in the analysis. Data showed highly variable rates of second-opinion seeking. Younger age, female gender, higher educational level, advanced disease, socioeconomic status and having health insurance were associated with an increased likelihood of this approach. The most common patient-reported reasons for seeking a second opinion were to gain more information, seek reassurance, access expert guidance, and check the accuracy of proposed treatments. Patient-initiated second opinions led to changes in diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis in up to 69% of cases and a greater likelihood of guideline-compliant recommendations; however, wide variability in reported rates precludes drawing firm conclusions. Patient satisfaction with second-opinion consultations was high and these were deemed helpful and reassuring in most cases.
conclusionIncreasing numbers of cancer patients are seeking second opinions, and these may have a considerable impact on diagnoses, outcomes and patient satisfaction. Improved patient education and further research regarding the impact of patient-initiated second opinions and barriers to access would be beneficial.
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.