ReviewESMO open2016
ESMO - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.0 questions and answers.
Review in ESMO open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Pooled it
- Quality of life of therapies for hormone receptor positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer: Regulatory aspects and clinical impact in Europe.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- An effort to improve the collection of patient-generated data: readability and understandability of patient-reported outcomes measures in a survivorship cohort.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Measuring Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials-Can We Improve Objectivity and Cross Trial Comparisons?Cancers · 2020Review
- New Treatment Options for Advanced Gastroesophageal Tumours: Mature for the Current Practice?Cancers · 2020Review
- Time to give a rest to cetuximab in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma?Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Successes and failures: what did we learn from recent first-line treatment immunotherapy trials in non-small cell lung cancer?BMC medicine · 2017Review
- Improving Quality and Value of Cancer Care for Older Adults.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a standardised, generic, validated tool to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anticancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS is intended to both assist oncologists in explaining the likely benefits of a particular treatment to their patients as well as to aid public health decision makers' prioritise therapies for reimbursement. From its inception the ESMO-MCBS Working Group has invited questions and critiques to promote understanding and to address misunderstandings regarding the nuanced use of the scale, and to identify shortcomings in the scale to be addressed in future planned revisions and updates. The ESMO-MCBS V.1.0 has attracted many questions regarding its development, structure and potential applications. These questions, together with responses from the ESMO-MCBS Working Group, have been edited and collated, and are herein presented as a supplementary resource.
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.