Wherein the authors attempt to minimize the confusion generated by their study "Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

1. [Systemic treatment of breast cancer: professional guideline].Magyar onkologia · 2025
   Guideline
2. Is invasion a necessary step for metastases in breast cancer?Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018
   Review
3. Ductal carcinomaCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Ductal carcinoma2018

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.