Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441082›Full record

ArticleNature reviews. Clinical oncology2015

Clinical trials: Early phase clinical trials-are dose expansion cohorts needed?

Alexia Iasonos, John O'Quigley

Abstract readNews
In one paragraph

Article 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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Use of Expansion Cohorts in Phase I Trials and Probability of Success in Phase II for 381 Anticancer Drugs.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2017
    Article
  15. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II-efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Alexia IasonosDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA.
John O'QuigleyUniversity Pierre and Marie Curie-Paris 6, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Designs for phase I trials of combinations of agentsR01CA142859 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI CONAWAY, MARK R · 2010 to 2017
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA142859
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicHumansMaximum Tolerated DoseNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID26441082
PMCPMC4758199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.