Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17164010›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research : BCR2006

Measuring proliferation in breast cancer: practicalities and applications.

Mark J Beresford, George D Wilson, Andreas Makris

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The characteristics and clinical significance of atypical mitosis in breast cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Novel applications of molecular imaging to guide breast cancer therapy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark J BeresfordMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK. mjberesford@yahoo.co.uk
George D Wilson
Andreas Makris

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various methods are available for the measurement of proliferation rates in tumours, including mitotic counts, estimation of the fraction of cells in S-phase of the cell cycle and immunohistochemistry of proliferation-associated antigens. The evidence, advantages and disadvantages for each of these methods along with other novel approaches is reviewed in relation to breast cancer. The potential clinical applications of proliferative indices are discussed, including their use as prognostic indicators and predictors of response to systemic therapy.

Indexed as

Cell ProliferationAntigens, NuclearBreast NeoplasmsCyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinsDeuterium OxideDisease ProgressionDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIFemaleHumansKi-67 AntigenMitotic IndexNuclear ProteinsPositron-Emission TomographyProliferating Cell Nuclear AntigenS PhaseAntigens, NuclearCyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinsDeuterium OxideDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIKi-67 AntigenNuclear Proteinsnucleolar organizer region associated proteinsProliferating Cell Nuclear AntigenThymidine Kinasethymidine kinase 1

Identifiers

PMID17164010
PMCPMC1797032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.