Critical appraisal:Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK 2010

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol 2010 Jun;17(3):17-27 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567623.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

systematic review — yes

Study aims:

set out to evaluate whether vc is feasible for the assessment, monitoring, and management of oncology patients.

Number of Patients:

200

Reported outcome(s):

feasible for the assessment, monitoring, and management of oncology patients.

Results of outcome(s):

Of the more than three hundred articles retrieved, nineteen articles describing 15 unique patient populations involving 709 patients were inclusded in the analysis. No randomized trials were located. Eight studies included a control group; seven involved a case series. The most commonly reported outcomes were patient satisfaction (ten studies), cost to perform consultation (six studies), patient preference for vc compared with in-person consultation (five studies), provider satisfaction (four studies), and provider convenience (four studies). Of these outcomes, satisfaction on the part of patients and physicians has been positive overall, total costs were comparable to or less than those for in-person consultations, and patients valued having vc as an option for consultation. Outcomes evaluating the effect on clinical care were infrequently reported.

Includes an economic evaluation

yes

Evidence ratings

Level of evidence

II

Risk of bias
Moderate risk of bias Comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your quality rating

Risk of bias assessment: systematic review

Studies included in the review
Was an adequate search strategy used?
Adequate – search terms and/or choice of databases could have been improved upon
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate and applied in an unbiased way?
Adequate – inclusion criteria were pre-specified and applied by one person
Were the studies assessed for quality (relating to the minimisation of biases)?
Adequate – some problems with quality issues or assessed by one person only
Were the characteristics and results of individual studies appropriately summarised?
Adequate – more information would be desirable
The following questions are only relevant for systematic reviews that pooled data
Were the methods used for pooling the data appropriate?
No
If there was heterogeneity, were sources of heterogeneity explored?
No
Size of effect
5 Reason for decision: Please replace this text and briefly describe the reasons for your rating
Relevance of evidence
3 Additional comments: Please replace this text and briefly describe the reasons for your rating
Result of appraisal

Jutta's tick icon.png Included




Completed by

Professor Sabe Sabesan


Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol 2010 Jun;17(3):17-27 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567623.
Assigned to
User:Peggy.briggs
Topic area
Guidelines:
Property "Appraisal topic" (as page type) with input value "Guidelines:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Clinical question
Form
Form:Critical appraisal


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment