Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23736035›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2013

Cancer chemoprevention: a rapidly evolving field.

W P Steward, K Brown

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 362 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms Modulated by Genistein in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Plant-Derived Anti-Cancer Therapeutics and Biopharmaceuticals.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

79 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

W P StewardDepartment of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, University of Leicester, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. wps1@leicester.ac.uk
K Brown
University of Leicester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer chemoprevention involves the chronic administration of a synthetic, natural or biological agent to reduce or delay the occurrence of malignancy. The potential value of this approach has been demonstrated with trials in breast, prostate and colon cancer. The paradigm for developing new chemopreventive agents has changed markedly in the last decade and now involves extensive preclinical mechanistic evaluation of agents before clinical trials are instituted and a focus on defining biomarkers of activity that can be used as early predictors of efficacy. This review will summarise the current status of the field of chemoprevention and highlight potential new developments.

Indexed as

Anticarcinogenic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorHumansNeoplasmsAnticarcinogenic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID23736035
PMCPMC3708589
OpenAlexW2045617306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.