Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36623249›Full record

ReviewJCO oncology practice2023

Medical Oncologists' Knowledge and Perspectives on the Use of Biosimilars in the United States.

John Devin Peipert, Karen Kaiser, Sheetal Kircher, George J Greene, Sara Shaunfield, Katherina Hauner, David Cella, Daniel K Mroczek

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John Devin PeipertDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-5762-7881
Karen KaiserDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-6550-5240
Sheetal KircherDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-3429-6378
George J GreeneDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-4620-5840
Sara ShaunfieldDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0003-2878-7223
Katherina HaunerDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
David CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-9881-4541
Daniel K MroczekDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0003-3748-5059
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Personality prediction of dementia risk and progressionR01AG067622 · NIA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI MROCZEK, DANIEL K. · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG067622
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite increasing availability of biosimilar cancer treatments, little is known about oncologists' knowledge and concerns regarding biosimilar use in the United States. We surveyed medical oncologists to examine their knowledge, attitudes, and experience with biosimilars.

methodsOncologists recruited via the ASCO Research Survey Pool completed a 29-question survey in 2020 designed with input from clinical and health care system experts and literature review.

resultsOf the 269 respondents, most treated patients with biosimilars (n = 236, 88%) and reported that biosimilars were required at their institution (n = 168, 63%). Approximately half (n = 140, 52%) of oncologists correctly responded that biosimilars were not the same as generic medicines. Commonly reported barriers to use of biosimilars included concerns regarding a perceived lack of relevant research (n = 85, 33% reporting quite a bit/very much), the potential for extrapolation (n = 83, 33%), and efficacy limitations (n = 77, 30%). More oncologists from university hospitals (n = 36, 22%) than from community/private hospitals (n = 28, 38%) or private practices (n = 13, 38%) were concerned about biosimilar efficacy. A high proportion of oncologists reported that information on safety (n = 259, 99%) and efficacy (n = 255, 99%) is important when considering whether to use biosimilars. Less than half reported that their institution provided education about biosimilars (n = 108, 40%).

conclusionIn this sample of medical oncologists, knowledge about basic features of biosimilars was limited and access to information about biosimilars was insufficient. The present study determined that educational programs on biosimilars for oncologists are needed and identified priorities for such efforts.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsOncologistsDrugs, GenericHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID36623249
PMCPMC10530389
OpenAlexW4313855606

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.