Question · asked by 1 review
Non‐specialist‐led vs specialist‐led follow‐up after primary cancer treatment: Costs
- Population
- adult cancer survivors from the following cancer sites: breast, colon, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, cervical, melanoma and oesophageal
- Intervention
- Non‐specialist‐led
- Comparison
- specialist‐led follow‐up after primary cancer treatment
- Outcome
- Costs
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Non‐specialist‐led vs specialist‐led follow‐up after primary cancer treatment Cost · adult cancer survivors from the following cancer sites: breast, colon, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, cervical,… Follow‐up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1756 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow‐up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.