Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20198462›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2010

Pancreatic cancer: pathobiology, treatment options, and drug delivery.

Jing Li, M Guillaume Wientjes, Jessie L-S Au

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Designing live bacterial therapeutics for cancer.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. RSC advances · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 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.

Jing LiCollege of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
M Guillaume Wientjes
Jessie L-S Au

Funding

Enhanced Chemosensitivity of Pancreatic CancerR01CA100922 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI WIENTJES, M GUILLAUME · 2004 to 2008
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100922NCI NIH HHS R01CA100922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the USA. The high mortality rate is partly due to lack of effective treatments. This review summarizes the pathobiology and current treatment options for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, the review discusses the opportunities of developing novel therapies for pancreatic cancer provided by the progress in understanding the genetic mutations, tumor microenvironment, cancer stem cells, and drug delivery.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCombined Modality TherapyDisease ProgressionDrug Delivery SystemsHumansNeoplastic Stem CellsPancreatic NeoplasmsStem Cell TransplantationAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20198462
PMCPMC2844509

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.