Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27978570›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2017

Comparison of 2 Commercially Available Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms in Oncology.

Nicole M Kuderer, Kimberly A Burton, Sibel Blau, Andrea L Rose, Stephanie Parker, Gary H Lyman, C Anthony Blau

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Detection ofBiomolecules · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. [Molecular tumor boards in uro-oncology-prostate cancer].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

28 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

7 authors.

Nicole M KudererDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle2Center for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kimberly A BurtonDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle2Center for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Sibel BlauCenter for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle3Northwest Medical Specialties, Puyallup, Washington.
Andrea L RoseCenter for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle3Northwest Medical Specialties, Puyallup, Washington.
Stephanie ParkerCenter for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle3Northwest Medical Specialties, Puyallup, Washington.
Gary H LymanDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle4 Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
C Anthony BlauDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle2Center for Cancer Innovation, University of Washington, Seattle5Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCell-Free Nucleic AcidsExonsFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNACell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID27978570
PMCPMC5824236

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.