Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27171889›Full record

ReviewOcular oncology and pathology2015

Use of the Chick Embryo Model in Uveal Melanoma.

Helen Kalirai, Haleh Shahidipour, Sarah E Coupland, Gregorius Luyten

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ocular oncology and pathology, 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 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A short-term chick embryoIndian journal of ophthalmology · 2022
    Article
  10. Animal Models of Uveal Melanoma.Annals of eye science · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Latest on Uveal Melanoma Research and Clinical Trials: Updates from the Cure Ocular Melanoma (CURE OM) Science Meeting (2019).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The biology of uveal melanoma.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Helen KaliraiDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Haleh ShahidipourDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah E CouplandDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Gregorius LuytenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal models play a crucial role in basic and translational oncology research. Conventional rodent experiments, however, face ethical, practical and technical issues that limit their use. The chick embryo represents an accessible and economical in vivo model, which has long been used in developmental biology and for the study of angiogenesis. It is also a recognised xenograft model, and because of its lack of immune system in early development, the chick embryo has established itself as a key model system for cancer research, with which to study various steps in the metastatic process. In this chapter, we review the chick embryo model and the technical approaches adopted by cancer biologists, including advances in real-time imaging, and discuss how this has been or can be applied to improve our understanding of the biological events during uveal melanoma development and metastasis.

Indexed as

Chick embryoChorioallantoic membraneMetastasisUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID27171889
PMCPMC4847719

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.