ArticleJournal of pediatrics. Clinical practice2026
Survivorship Care Plan: Correlation between Practitioners and a Digital Tool (LOG-After).
Article in Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare survivorship care plans (SCPs) generated by the digital tool LOG-after with those proposed by oncologists, pediatric oncologists, and radiation oncologists for childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. LOG-after was developed through a participatory approach within the Grand Ouest Cancer de l'Enfant network and subsequently disseminated to other French comprehensive cancer centers to support the implementation of individualized, evidence-based survivorship care. This study was conducted as part of the Institut National du Cancer-funded Toxicity and Health after Irradiation on Neurocognition in Kids project. Study design: A questionnaire comprising 3 clinical cases (acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and nephroblastoma) was circulated among 3 national networks (Société Française des Cancers de l'Enfant, Adolescents and Young Adults Group, and Pediatric Radiotherapy). Responses were compared with SCPs generated by LOG-after, and attitudes were discussed in workshops. Results: Thirty-six practitioners participated, including 5 radiation oncologists. Thirteen respondents considered themselves experts in survivorship care. SCP varied significantly between practitioners, with no complete agreement. However, there was greater alignment between the software and practitioners for high-grade recommendations, particularly among experts (eg, 100% of experts recommended postanthracycline cardiac monitoring). Conclusions: Given the observed heterogeneity, the LOG-after tool, which integrates the latest recommendations, is expected to improve SCP by enhancing consistency and reducing unnecessary screenings. During the workshops, participants considered the algorithm to be generally aligned with published guidelines, confirming its potential to facilitate their broader dissemination. This digital tool can help standardize evidence-based survivorship care, potentially increase consistency in monitoring, and potentially lead to better long-term health outcomes for cancer survivors.
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.