Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21418514›Full record

ReviewJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2011

Matrix metalloproteinases: protective roles in cancer.

Julie Decock, Sally Thirkettle, Laura Wagstaff, Dylan R Edwards

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

49 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

4 authors.

Julie DecockSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. juliedecock80@gmail.com
Sally Thirkettle
Laura Wagstaff
Dylan R Edwards

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2006MAYPR23Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The original notion that matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) act as tumour and metastasis-promoting enzymes by clearing a path for tumour cells to invade and metastasize has been challenged in the last decade. It has become clear that MMPs are involved in numerous steps of tumour progression and metastasis, and hence are now considered to be multifaceted proteases. Moreover, more recent experimental evidence indicates that some members of the MMP family behave as tumour-suppressor enzymes and should therefore be regarded as anti-targets in cancer therapy. The complexity of the pro- and anti-tumorigenic and -metastatic functions might partly explain why broad-spectrum MMP inhibitors failed in phase III clinical trials. This review will provide a focussed overview of the published data on the tumour-suppressive behaviour of MMPs.

Indexed as

Matrix MetalloproteinasesAnimalsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicEnzyme InhibitorsFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMaleMiceMice, KnockoutNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicEnzyme InhibitorsMatrix Metalloproteinases

Identifiers

PMID21418514
PMCPMC4373327

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.