Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21808296›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Endocrinology2011

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gut and pancreas: new insights.

Guido Rindi, Bertram Wiedenmann

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Endocrinology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 95 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guido RindiInstitute of Pathology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore-Policlinico A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli 8, I-00168 Rome, Italy. guido.rindi@rm.unicatt.it
Bertram Wiedenmann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroendocrine neoplasms arise in almost every organ of the body and are variably defined according to the site of origin. This Review focuses on neuroendocrine neoplasms of the digestive tract and pancreas. The 2010 WHO classification of tumors of the digestive system introduces grading and staging tools for neuroendocrine neoplasms. A carcinoid is now defined as a grade 1 or 2 neuroendocrine tumor and grade 3, small-cell or large-cell carcinomas are defined as neuroendocrine carcinoma. Epidemiological data show a worldwide increase in the prevalence and incidence of gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the past few decades, which is probably due to improved methods of detection of these tumors. The current diagnostic procedures and treatment options for neuroendocrine neoplasms are defined and summarized in the Review, although evidence-based data are lacking. Surgery remains the treatment mainstay and somatostatin analogues the basis for both diagnosis and therapy as the only 'theranostic' tool. Emerging compounds including chemotherapeutic agents, small molecules and biological therapies may provide new hope for patients.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDigestive System Surgical ProceduresGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMedical OncologyModels, BiologicalNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapyWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

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.