Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21464896›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

A social network analysis of treatment discoveries in cancer.

Athanasios Tsalatsanis, Laura Barnes, Iztok Hozo, John Skvoretz, Benjamin Djulbegovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

Athanasios TsalatsanisCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America. atsalats@health.usf.edu
Laura Barnes
Iztok Hozo
John Skvoretz
Benjamin Djulbegovic

Funding

Quality of Research on Treatment Harms in CancerR01CA133594 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2007 to 2008
$539k
Evaluation of the Quality of Clinical TrialsR01NS052956 · NINDS · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2005 to 2006
$445k
Equipoise and the research integrity of clinical trialsR01NS044417 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2002 to 2003
$290k
NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA133594-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA133594NINDS NIH HHS 1R01NS044417-01NINDS NIH HHS 1R01NS052956-01NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS052956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlled clinical trials are widely considered to be the vehicle to treatment discovery in cancer that leads to significant improvements in health outcomes including an increase in life expectancy. We have previously shown that the pattern of therapeutic discovery in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be described by a power law distribution. However, the mechanism generating this pattern is unknown. Here, we propose an explanation in terms of the social relations between researchers in RCTs. We use social network analysis to study the impact of interactions between RCTs on treatment success. Our dataset consists of 280 phase III RCTs conducted by the NCI from 1955 to 2006. The RCT networks are formed through trial interactions formed i) at random, ii) based on common characteristics, or iii) based on treatment success. We analyze treatment success in terms of survival hazard ratio as a function of the network structures. Our results show that the discovery process displays power law if there are preferential interactions between trials that may stem from researchers' tendency to interact selectively with established and successful peers. Furthermore, the RCT networks are "small worlds": trials are connected through a small number of ties, yet there is much clustering among subsets of trials. We also find that treatment success (improved survival) is proportional to the network centrality measures of closeness and betweenness. Negative correlation exists between survival and the extent to which trials operate within a limited scope of information. Finally, the trials testing curative treatments in solid tumors showed the highest centrality and the most influential group was the ECOG. We conclude that the chances of discovering life-saving treatments are directly related to the richness of social interactions between researchers inherent in a preferential interaction model.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial SupportHumansNeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21464896
PMCPMC3065482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.