ArticleThe oncologist2014
Expanding public-private collaborations to enhance cancer drug development: a report of the Institute of Medicine's workshop series, "Implementing a National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century".
Article in The oncologist, 2014. 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.
- Barriers to conducting cancer trials in Canada: an analysis of key informant interviews.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Institutional Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Research: A Solution to Resource Limitations.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- Defining a new role for the National Cancer Institute cooperative groups: more science, fewer trials.The oncologist · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since their inception in the 1950s, the National Cancer Institute-funded cancer cooperative groups have been important contributors to cancer clinical and translational research. In 2010, a committee appointed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences completed a consensus review on the status of the U.S. publicly funded cancer clinical trials system. This report identified a need to reinvigorate the cooperative groups and provided recommendations for improving their effectiveness. Follow-up workshops to monitor progress were conducted by the IOM's National Cancer Policy Forum and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in 2011 and 2013. One of the key recommendations of the IOM report was a call for greater collaboration among stakeholders in cancer research. In particular, more active engagement and better alignment of incentives among the cooperative groups, the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the biopharmaceutical industry were identified as essential to achieving the promise of oncology drug development. This review, based on presentations and discussion during the IOM-ASCO workshops, outlines the progress and remaining challenges of these collaborations.
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.