Evidence mapPaperPMID 37024867Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2023

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review.

Ana-Mihaela Bora, Vanessa Piechotta, Nina Kreuzberger, Ina Monsef, Andreas Wender, Markus Follmann, Monika Nothacker, Nicole Skoetz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Transitioning to adolescent and young adult or adult cancer survivorship care: A systematic review of contemporary guidelines and trials.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
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.

Ana-Mihaela BoraEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. ana-mihaela.bora@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-9790
Vanessa PiechottaEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nina KreuzbergerEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ina MonsefEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Andreas WenderEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Markus FollmannGerman Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Monika NothackerInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, C/O Faculty of Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Nicole SkoetzEvidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceGuideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence.

methodsA systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593.

findingsOf 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff. PATIENT-LEVEL: Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain. PROVIDER-LEVEL: Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceReferral and ConsultationHumansMedical OncologyBehaviourClinical practice guidelineGuideline adherenceHealthcare professionalsImplementationOncologyPatient-relevant outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37024867
PMCPMC10080872

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.