ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia: evidence mapping of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Certainty of evidence on the effects of cryotherapy, surgical wound closure, and chlorhexidine on clinical and patient-centered outcomes after third molar surgery: evidence mapping of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025Article
- An evidence mapping study based on systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for diabetic retinopathy.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.Neural plasticity · 2023Review
- Effects of marital status on survival of retroperitoneal liposarcomas stratified by age and sex: A population-based study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Wearing masks to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: a systematic evidence mapping.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain on the Non-Motor Cortex: An Evidence Mapping of Systematic Reviews.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
- Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Review
- Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for soft tissue sarcomas.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Review
- Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours. Currently, different pharmacological and surgical options are used to treat localised and metastatic GISTs, although this research field is broad and the body of evidence is scattered and expanding. Our objectives are to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence for GIST through an evidence mapping approach.
methodsWe followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos in order to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and presented the evidence map in tables and a bubble plot.
resultsA total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria. These reviews included 66 individual studies, of which three quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. Overall, the quality of the included SRs was moderate or high. In total, we extracted 14 PICO questions from them and the corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm.
conclusionsThe most common type of study used to evaluate therapeutic interventions in GIST sarcomas has been non-experimental studies. However, the majority of the interventions are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial by the respective authors of SRs. The evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.
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.