Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24643704›Full record

ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2014

MYH polyposis syndrome: clinical findings, genetics issues and management.

M Sereno, M Merino, M López-Gómez, C Gómez-Raposo, F Zambrana Tébar, J Moreno Rubio, J Espinós, S Martín-Algarra, E Casado Sáenz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Genomic landscape of colorectal carcinogenesis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M SerenoOncology Department, Infanta Sofía University Hospital, AV de Europa, 32, San Sebastian de los Reyes, 28708, Madrid, Spain, mariasereno75@gmail.com.
M Merino
M López-Gómez
C Gómez-Raposo
F Zambrana Tébar
J Moreno Rubio
J Espinós
S Martín-Algarra
E Casado Sáenz
Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía · ESClinica Universidad de Navarra · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent cancer in first world. Two hereditary CCR syndrome have been described: familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. A recently described biallelic mutation of MYH, is responsible for adenomatous polyposis with an increased risk of CRC and is responsible for 30-40 % of adenomatous polyposis cases in which an APC mutation cannot be found. However, there is no clear consensus in the literature as whether a monoallelic mutation increases the risk for colorectal cancer. In addition, some authors have indicated that the spectrum of extracolonic lesions in MYH associated polyposis (MAP) might be far different from that observed in FAP and could be more similar to Lynch syndrome spectrum. In this review we are going to describe some general and specific aspects of MAP, including genetic topics, clinical features, different phenotypes and strategies to reduce CCR risk.

Indexed as

Adenomatous Polyposis ColiHumans

Identifiers

PMID24643704
OpenAlexW2073338254

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.