Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23639860›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2013

Not significant but important.

James L Mulshine, Frank G Ondrey

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James L MulshineDepartment of Internal Medicine, Vice President Research, Rush University, 1735 West Harrison Street, Suite 206, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. james_l_mulshine@rush.edu
Frank G Ondrey
Rush University Medical Center · USUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Armstrong and colleagues report the result of a large Phase IIb randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a preparation of the Bowman Birk Inhibitor compared with an oral placebo in reversing the extent of oral leukoplakia as measured visually by pathology or a battery of intermediate end points. In this editorial, we review the report of this negative clinical trials result to highlight the clinical trial process used in evaluating this previously promising chemoprevention agent. Publishing this report is important to address concerns with publication bias. The challenges in running a chemoprevention trial are reviewed with suggestions to enhance progress going forward. Conceptually, developing drugs to intercept the early stages of carcinogenesis is very attractive, but progress in this area has been slow. Two opportunities to overcome this reality are discussed. These measures include the broader use of neoadjuvant, window-of-opportunity trials with new candidate chemoprevention agents to get more textured information about the mechanistic impact of the drug exposure in previously untreated early tumor tissue. In addition, we discuss the use of new intermediate end point markers such as with optical imaging tools to obtain a more objective and quantitative assessment of drug response.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLeukoplakia, OralMaleTrypsin Inhibitor, Bowman-Birk SoybeanTrypsin InhibitorsTrypsin Inhibitor, Bowman-Birk SoybeanTrypsin Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID23639860
OpenAlexW2140734700

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.