ArticleMolecular oncology2008
The state of academic cancer surgery in the UK.
Article in Molecular oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the Gap: The State of Global Transplant Research Collaboration.Transplantation direct · 2025Article
- The impact of The Royal College of Surgeons of England research fellowship scheme.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2016Article
- The future of trials in surgical oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2015Review
- A call for collaboration in surgical oncology.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- The state of academic cancer surgery in the UK.Molecular oncology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite media and public perception to the contrary cancer surgery is the most important modality for the control and cure of cancer. However, after years of underinvestment by research funders and increasing service delivery demands the academic cancer surgeon is an endangered species. In an effort to improve evidence-based policymaking in this critical domain of cancer research the ECRM has conducted a semi-quantitative assessment of the state of academic cancer surgery in the UK. We have found that the percentage of investment in cancer surgical technologies R&D is less than 1% and even when this is extended to other diseases then this figure is still less than 1%. A decline in the overall numbers of academic surgical staff is paralleled by our finding that over 50% of the academic cancer surgeons in this survey had insufficient time for research. With clinical trials and surgical technology development identified as key research domains the majority (60-80%) did not perceive any benefit for surgical research in these areas as a result of the creation of the UK National Cancer Research Institute. We also found high support for academic surgery from colleagues but medium-low support from many institutions. Key policy conclusions are: (1) greater hypothecated investment by research funders, particularly for the development of surgical technologies as well as clinical trials, and (2) the creation of cancer surgery centres of excellence which have sufficient staffing and institutional support to engendered a creative academic environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.