Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20167889›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2010

Five steps for structural reform in clinical cancer research.

Alastair Matheson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alastair Mathesonamathesonresearch@gmail.com
Council for British Research in the Levant · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in the prevention and early detection of cancer and the treatment of some malignancies, clinical research has not yet delivered treatment benefits of the magnitude anticipated after the launch of imatinib, which established highly effective new treatment standards. The primary impediments to progress are scientific, but the efficiency of research is also affected by structural deficiencies relating to where and by whom it is conducted, as well as how it is organized and regulated. To optimize the research environment and maximize the benefits of improved funding, adjustments in the roles of government, industry, the academic community, national research bodies, and regulatory authorities are needed. A patchwork of reforms that are enabling in character and build on existing expertise can deliver substantial progress without the need for radical intervention.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHealth Care ReformHumansMedical OncologyModels, OrganizationalNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsOrganizational CulturePoliticsResearch Support as TopicUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID20167889
PMCPMC2836352
OpenAlexW2061968853

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.