Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27220481›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2016

Bone metastasis: the importance of the neighbourhood.

Peter I Croucher, Michelle M McDonald, T John Martin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 258 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
258citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
23.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

258 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 467 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Hierarchical Targeting of TREM2Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter I CroucherDivision of Bone Biology, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia.
Michelle M McDonaldDivision of Bone Biology, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia.
T John MartinSt Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, 9 Princes Street, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Victoria 3065, Australia.
Garvan Institute of Medical Research · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past decade preclinical studies have defined many of the mechanisms used by tumours to hijack the skeleton and promote bone metastasis. This has led to the development and widespread clinical use of bone-targeted drugs to prevent skeletal-related events. This understanding has also identified a critical dependency between colonizing tumour cells and the cells of bone. This is particularly important when tumour cells first arrive in bone, adapt to their new microenvironment and enter a long-lived dormant state. In this Review, we discuss the role of different bone cell types in supporting disseminated tumour cell dormancy and reactivation, and highlight the new opportunities this provides for targeting the bone microenvironment to control dormancy and bone metastasis.

Indexed as

Tumor MicroenvironmentBone NeoplasmsBone RemodelingHumans

Identifiers

PMID27220481
OpenAlexW2396599501

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.