Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076650›Full record

ReviewCancer metastasis reviews2013

Animal models of colorectal cancer.

Robert L Johnson, James C Fleet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer metastasis reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Colonic mucinous adenocarcinoma in a tufted deer: differential diagnosis and literature review.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2022
    Review

9 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

2 authors.

Robert L JohnsonDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
James C Fleet

Funding

Inducible colon-specific transgenic mouse for cancer researchR21CA165240 · NCI · PURDUE UNIVERSITY · PI FLEET, JAMES C. · 2012 to 2013
$315k
NCI NIH HHS CA165240NCI NIH HHS R21 CA165240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease that afflicts a large number of people in the USA. The use of animal models has the potential to increase our understanding of carcinogenesis, tumor biology, and the impact of specific molecular events on colon biology. In addition, animal models with features of specific human colorectal cancers can be used to test strategies for cancer prevention and treatment. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms driving human cancer, we discuss the approaches one can take to model colon cancer in animals, and we describe a number of specific animal models that have been developed for the study of colon cancer. We believe that there are many valuable animal models to study various aspects of human colorectal cancer. However, opportunities for improving upon these models exist.

Indexed as

AnimalsColorectal NeoplasmsDisease Models, AnimalHumansNeoplasm MetastasisPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID23076650
PMCPMC3572245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.