ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025
Clinical Practice Guidelines Adherence and the Impact on Health Outcomes in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 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
- Perceptions and Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Psychosocial Oncology-A Pan-Canadian Survey of Mental Health and Social Service Professionals.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed to standardize care by providing physicians and decision-makers with evidence-based recommendations. This study analyzed the effects of guideline adherence on clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched through December 2024. Inclusion criteria were randomized control trials (RCT), prospective and retrospective cohort studies on patients with cancer managed with CPG adherent vs. non-adherent care. Two reviewers screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and quality of life. A random-effects model was used to pool the results. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Seventy-five studies were included. Results suggest that adherence to CPG was associated with improved OS in all disease sites (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.70); Conclusion: Evidence suggests that clinician's adherence to CPG recommendations may improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. However, the evidence is largely based on retrospective observational studies, highlighting need for prospective trials to further elucidate these associations and better guide clinical practice.
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.