Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22219164›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2012

Strawberry fields forever?

Nanjoo Suh, John M Pezzuto

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2012. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nanjoo SuhErnest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 164 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. nsuh@rci.rutgers.edu
John M Pezzuto

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Chang S Chan · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

On the basis of copious preclinical data supporting the preventive efficacy of small fruits such as berries and grapes, Chen and colleagues conducted a randomized (noncomparative) phase II trial evaluating two doses of strawberry powder (60 g/d or 30 g/d for six months) to prevent esophageal cancer in China (reported in this issue of the journal, beginning on page 41); 60 g/d reduced the histologic grade of dysplastic lesions and reduced localized biomarkers, whereas 30 g/d was not effective. Fundamental questions remain such as the best formulation of strawberry powder, the active components associated with powder, and the actual mechanism of action, and standardized preparations will be required to permit the widespread use of strawberry powder with a predicable outcome. Clearly, however, this work is a good example of proof-of-principle and highlights the important role of diet, nutrition, and natural products in cancer prevention.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFragariaHumansMalePlant ExtractsPlant Extracts

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.