ArticleChinese journal of cancer2016
Leveraging the power of pooled data for cancer outcomes research.
Article in Chinese journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials continue to be the gold standard for determining the efficacy of novel cancer treatments, but they may also expose participants to the potential risks of unpredictable or severe toxicities. The development of validated tools that better inform patients of the benefits and risks associated with clinical trial participation can facilitate the informed consent process. The design and validation of such instruments are strengthened when we leverage the power of pooled data analysis for cancer outcomes research. MAIN BODY: In a recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology entitled "Determinants of early mortality among 37,568 patients with colon cancer who participated in 25 clinical trials from the adjuvant colon cancer endpoints database," using a large pooled analysis of over 30,000 study participants who were enrolled in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for early-stage colon cancer, we developed and validated a nomogram depicting the predictors of early cancer mortality. This database of pooled individual-level data allowed for a comprehensive analysis of poor prognostic factors associated with early death; furthermore, it enabled the creation of a nomogram that was able to reliably capture and quantify the benefit-to-risk profile for patients who are considering clinical trial participation. This tool can facilitate treatment decision-making discussions.
conclusionAs China and other Asian countries continue to conduct oncology clinical trials, efforts to collate patient-level information from these studies into a large data repository should be strongly considered since pooled data can increase future capacity for cancer outcomes research, which, in turn, can enhance patient-physician discussions and optimize clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.