ArticleCancers2025
Developing Cancer Quality of Care Indicators to Quantify the Impact of a Global Destabilization of the Care System (COLLAT-COVID).
Article in Cancers, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in healthcare systems, particularly impacting cancer care through delays in diagnoses and treatments. Quality indicators (QIs) are essential tools for monitoring healthcare performance, yet existing QIs may not be suited for crises. This study aimed to develop a set of hospital-based QIs tailored to assess the impact of care reorganization during health crises across four cancer types: breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gynecological cancers (excluding ovarian cancer), and peritoneal carcinomatosis.
methodsA multidisciplinary steering committee (SC) conducted a five-stage process, including a literature review, indicator selection, content validation via the RAND/UCLA method, final validation by the SC, and a pilot feasibility study. QIs were assessed based on clinical relevance, reproducibility, sensitivity to change, and feasibility. Expert panels evaluated and validated the indicators in two rounds of voting.
resultsAmong 150 initially identified QIs, 49 were validated: 12 for breast cancer, 11 for hepatocellular carcinoma, 8 for gynecological cancers, and 18 for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Most (92%) were process indicators, covering diagnosis, treatment, and care delays. Two common indicators were identified across all four cancers: multidisciplinary team meeting discussions and psychological support consultations.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of developing crisis-responsive QIs to monitor cancer care during health system disruptions. Future work will focus on their real-time implementation, validation in international settings, and integration into healthcare policies to enhance crisis preparedness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.