FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1995112788> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1995112788 endingPage "257" @default.
• W1995112788 startingPage "257" @default.
• W1995112788 abstract "Background: The burden of illness is high for lung cancer patients, carers and society. Follow-up interventions may be able to support patients living with lung cancer and improve survival. The aim of this review was to examine the evidence for the effectiveness of intensive follow-up of patients with lung cancer. This review is the first step in the development of a new model of service delivery for lung cancer patients utilising the Medical Research Council (UK) guidance for the development of complex interventions.Material and Methods: Data sources: English language observational studies and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were retrieved from electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, British NursingIndex, Cochrane Library and National Research Register). If there was more than one study with like populations, interventions and outcomes, the relevant data were statistically synthesised. Time to event data weresynthesised using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Nine studies that examined the role of intensive follow-up for lung cancer patients were included in the review (eight observational studies and one RCT). This meta-analysis shows that there is a trend for intensivefollow-up to improve survival in patients with lung cancer, although this result is not statistically significant for the curative treatment intent group(HR 0.82, CI 0.64−1.05) or the palliative treatment group (HR 0.69, CI 0.46−1.04). There is a statistically significant difference in survival for patients with potentially resectable NSCLC with asymptomatic recurrence(HR 0.59, CI 0.48−0.72), although this is complicated by lead time bias.Conclusion: There is no evidence that intensive follow-up of lung cancer patients improves survival compared to standard or less intensive follow-up. However, because this finding is based on observational studies with potential for bias, further evidence, ideally from RCTs, is needed. The review identified limited reporting of patient centered outcomes. Further research is required to explore patient-centered outcomes of follow-up such as quality of life and satisfaction. The second phase of this research is underway exploring patients', professionals' and carers' views of follow-up care to develop an intervention that can be tested in a clinical trial. The findings of this review will be discussed in the context of this ongoing research and the development of a new nurse led intervention for the follow-up of lung cancer patients." @default.
• W1995112788 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1995112788 creator A5001161569 @default.
• W1995112788 creator A5031431460 @default.
• W1995112788 creator A5044747870 @default.
• W1995112788 creator A5058139106 @default.
• W1995112788 date "2009-09-01" @default.
• W1995112788 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1995112788 title "4267 What is the best way to follow-up lung cancer patients? Findings from a systematic review and the development of a new model of care" @default.
• W1995112788 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-6349(09)70884-5" @default.
• W1995112788 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1995112788 type Work @default.
• W1995112788 sameAs 1995112788 @default.
• W1995112788 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1995112788 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1995112788 hasAuthorship W1995112788A5001161569 @default.
• W1995112788 hasAuthorship W1995112788A5031431460 @default.
• W1995112788 hasAuthorship W1995112788A5044747870 @default.
• W1995112788 hasAuthorship W1995112788A5058139106 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C134306372 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C2776542497 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C121608353 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C126322002 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C134306372 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C143998085 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C177713679 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C2776256026 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C2776542497 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C33923547 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C41008148 @default.
• W1995112788 hasConceptScore W1995112788C71924100 @default.
• W1995112788 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1995112788 hasLocation W19951127881 @default.
• W1995112788 hasOpenAccess W1995112788 @default.
• W1995112788 hasPrimaryLocation W19951127881 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W1575925512 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W1967103478 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2032912323 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2372561159 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2375344515 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2390152934 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W4206783359 @default.
• W1995112788 hasRelatedWork W4253419875 @default.
• W1995112788 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W1995112788 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1995112788 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1995112788 magId "1995112788" @default.
• W1995112788 workType "article" @default.