ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2015
The future of trials in surgical oncology.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the Evidence for Surgical Care of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NETs): A Scoping Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Biomaterials-mediated biomineralization for tumor blockade therapy.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Analysis of Registered Clinical Trials in Surgical Oncology, 2008-2020.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Prognosis of C4 dislocation with spinal cord injury following psychological intervention.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Inhibiting Cell Viability and Motility by Layer-by-Layer Assembly and Biomineralization.ACS omega · 2020Article
- A Ferritin-Albumin-Cu Nanoparticle that Efficaciously Delivers Copper(II) Ions to a Tumor and Improves the Therapeutic Efficacy of Disulfiram.ACS omega · 2020Article
- What can we learn from oncology surgical trials?Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with cancer generally have better outcomes when treated as part of a clinical trial compared with patients not enrolled in a clinical trial. Unfortunately, surgical participation in, and leadership of such studies, is limited. This lack of clinical investigation is adversely affecting progress in cancer surgery research and, ultimately, hinders the treatment of patients. Some of the reasons for poor surgical participation in clinical research include: limitations on funding provision; inadequate training of junior surgeons in clinical trials methodology; and inadequate support of surgical faculty members as clinical investigators. Despite these shortcomings, numerous successful surgical studies have helped to change concepts, and improve patient care in certain clinical areas. Finally, a number of possible solutions are proposed, which might improve surgical involvement in clinical trials and result in more, and better-designed and executed clinical trials in this important area of research.
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.