Evidence mapPaperPMID 36826134Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023

Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians' Perspective.

Anumithra Amirthanayagam, Louise Boulter, Nessa Millet, Hilary J McDermott, Jo Morrison, Alexandra Taylor, Tracie Miles, Lorna Coton, Esther L Moss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Healthcare professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators of risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Anumithra AmirthanayagamLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Louise BoulterDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK.
Nessa MilletLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Hilary J McDermottSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2809-9888
Jo MorrisonSomerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton TA1 5DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-520X
Alexandra TaylorThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SW3 6JJ, UK.
Tracie MilesRoyal United Hospital Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath BA1 3NG, UK.
Lorna CotonRoyal United Hospital Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath BA1 3NG, UK.
Esther L MossLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2650-0172

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres; however, there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians' and clinical specialist nurses' (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national "Personalising Endometrial Cancer Follow-up" educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians' views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC; however, barriers were identified for non-English-speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients' personal needs and preferences.

Indexed as

COVID-19Endometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansPandemicsPatient Satisfactionendometrial cancerfollow-uppatient-initiated follow-upsurvivorshiptelephone follow-up

Identifiers

PMID36826134
PMCPMC9955652

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.