| Title |
Is there evidence for a better health care for cancer patients after a second opinion? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00432-015-2099-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dana Ruetters, Christian Keinki, Sarah Schroth, Patrick Liebl, Jutta Huebner |
| Abstract |
With growing complexity of diagnostics and therapy, as well as increasing involvement of patients in the decision-making process, there is more and more demand for second opinions in oncology. This literature review aims at analyzing the benefits and risks involved, as well as the tools needed to establish a structured program for second opinion within a modern healthcare system. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase and the databases SocINDEX, ERIC and CINAHL. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria and offered a relevant insight into the topic of second opinions. Depending on the study, between 6.5 and 36 % of patients search for a second opinion, due to a variety of reasons. Changes in diagnosis, treatment recommendations or prognosis as a result of the second opinion occurred in 12-69 % of cases. In 43-82 % of cases, the original diagnosis or treatment was verified. Patient satisfaction was high, and the second opinion was deemed as helpful and reassuring in most cases. Yet, data on patient-relevant outcomes or on the quality of the second opinion are missing. In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients' demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient-physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Japan | 2 | 22% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 26% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,154,984
of 25,119,447 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
#31
of 2,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,796
of 401,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,119,447 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,797 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.