Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25962976›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2015

Cardiotoxicity of anticancer treatments.

Michael S Ewer, Steven M Ewer

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 204 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
204citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

204 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael S EwerDepartment of Cardiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Steven M EwerSchool of Medicine &Public Health, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with cancer can experience adverse cardiovascular events secondary to the malignant process itself or its treatment. Patients with cancer might also have underlying cardiovascular illness, the consequences of which are often exacerbated by the stress of the tumour growth or its treatment. With the advent of new treatments and subsequent prolonged survival time, late effects of cancer treatment can become clinically evident decades after completion of therapy. The heart's extensive energy reserve and its ability to compensate for reduced function add to the complexity of diagnosis and timely initiation of therapy. Additionally, modern oncological treatment regimens often incorporate multiple agents whose deleterious cardiac effects might be additive or synergistic. Treatment-related impairment of cardiac contractility can be either transient or irreversible. Furthermore, cancer treatment is associated with life-threatening arrhythmia, ischaemia, infarction, and damage to cardiac valves, the conduction system, or the pericardium. Awareness of these processes has gained prominence with the arrival of strategies to monitor and to prevent or to mitigate the effects of cardiovascular damage. A greater understanding of the mechanisms of injury can prolong the lives of those cured of their malignancy, but left with potentially devastating cardiac sequelae.

Indexed as

CardiotoxicityAntineoplastic AgentsHumansNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID25962976

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.