Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21629830›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2011

Capecitabine in the management of colorectal cancer.

Bradford R Hirsch, S Yousuf Zafar

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Clinical pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites in colorectal cancer patients.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bradford R HirschDivision of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
S Yousuf Zafar
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

5-Fluorouracil has been a mainstay in the treatment of colorectal cancer for nearly five decades; however, the use of oral formulations of the medication has been gaining increasing traction since capecitabine was approved for use in adjuvant settings by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2005. The use of capecitabine has since spread to a number of off-label indications, including the treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer and the neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer. In light of increasing utilization, it is critical that clinicians have a firm understanding of the literature supporting capecitabine across various settings as well as the attributes of the drug, such as its dosing recommendations, side-effect profile, and use in the elderly. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the literature in a fashion that can be used to help guide decisions. In a setting of increasing focus on cost, the pharmacoeconomic literature is also briefly reviewed.

Indexed as

capecitabinecolon cancercolorectal cancerrectal cancerXeloda

Identifiers

PMID21629830
PMCPMC3097797
OpenAlexW1968597026

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.