ReviewBritish journal of cancer2015
Comparing comparators: a look at control arms in kidney cancer studies over the years.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The role of B cells in multiple sclerosis: Current and future therapies.Cellular immunology · 2019Review
- Deciphering the Role of B Cells in Multiple Sclerosis-Towards Specific Targeting of Pathogenic Function.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past decade, an increasing number of frequently positive randomised clinical trials have been completed, allowing new consideration of the present therapeutic armamentarium for advanced renal cell carcinoma. These studies were predominantly designed to compare the experimental drugs with 1 of 2 active control arms: interferon alpha-2a or sorafenib. Different from expectations, the final results of some of these studies were not in line with the predictions, and the reasons have not been fully investigated. Consequently, there is a great need for careful analysis of the studies carried out so far, chiefly the role and validity of the control arms. In this regard, the examination of patient baseline characteristics and other factors of potential interest seems fundamental for a correct analysis of the results of these trials and consequent optimal use of the available targeted agents.
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.