Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26096019›Full record

ReviewCancer2015

Ovarian cancer treatment: The end of empiricism?

Stephanie Lheureux, Katherine Karakasis, Elise C Kohn, Amit M Oza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. International journal of oncology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effect of Cerenkov Radiation-Induced Photodynamic Therapy withInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  9. SurgeryGland surgery · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Stephanie LheureuxDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine KarakasisDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elise C KohnCancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Amit M OzaDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis, investigation, and management of ovarian cancer are in a state of flux-balancing ever rapid advances in our understanding of its biology with 3 decades of clinical trials. Clinical trials that started with empirically driven selections have evolved in an evidence-informed manner to gradually improve outcome. Has this improved understanding of the biology and associated calls to action led to appropriate changes in therapy? In this review, the authors discuss incorporating emerging data on biology, combinations, dose, and scheduling of new and existing agents with patient preferences in the management of women with ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agentsbiologybiomarkersovarian cancerstrategytreatment

Identifiers

PMID26096019
PMCPMC4744728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.