ArticleThe oncologist2013
Prospective head and neck cancer research: a four-decade bibliometric perspective.
Article in The oncologist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The International Collaboration for Research methods Development in Oncology (CReDO) workshops: shaping the future of global oncology research.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
- A Bibliometric Review of Publications on Oxidative Stress and Chemobrain: 1990-2019.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.American journal of public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unknown whether changes in study sponsorship have affected the proportion of prospective research on surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) being published over time. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe examined prospective studies from PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Chi-squared tests were used to identify significant associations between sponsorship and authorship, treatments within study protocols, and presentation of results, whereas time-based trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test.
resultsAmong 309 articles, industry (70, 22.7%) and the U.S. government (65, 21%) were the most common sponsors. There was a significant increase in the proportion of industry-sponsored research (p for trend = .013) and a decline in U.S. government-sponsored research (p for trend = .001) over time. The inclusion of surgery in treatment protocols declined over the past four decades (p for trend = .003). Protocols incorporating pharmacotherapy were more likely to have industry support than those without pharmacotherapy (p = .001), whereas protocols with radiotherapy (p = .003) or surgery (p = .002) were less likely to have industry support.
conclusionIndustry is the predominant sponsor of prospective HNSCC research, with an emphasis on pharmacotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.