Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28945867›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2017

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.

N I Cherny, U Dafni, J Bogaerts, N J Latino, G Pentheroudakis, J-Y Douillard, J Tabernero, C Zielinski, M J Piccart, E G E de Vries

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 272 papers, 31 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
272citing papers in PubMed, 31 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

272 citing papers in PubMed, 31 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Guideline
  16. Guideline
  17. Pooled it
  18. Guideline
  19. Guideline
  20. Guideline

212 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

N I ChernyCancer Pain and Palliative Medicine Service, Department of Medical Oncology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel;. Electronic address: mcbs@esmo.org.
U DafniLaboratory of Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens & Frontier Science Foundation-Hellas, Athens, Greece.
J BogaertsMethodology Direction, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
N J LatinoESMO Head Office, Lugano, Switzerland.
G PentheroudakisMedical Oncology Department, Ioannina University Hospital, Ioannina, Greece.
J-Y DouillardESMO Head Office, Lugano, Switzerland.
J TaberneroMedical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
C ZielinskiDivision of Oncology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
M J PiccartJules Bordet Institute, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
E G E de VriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review.

methodsThe revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board.

resultsTwelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1).

conclusionsESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.

Indexed as

BiostatisticsClinical Trials as TopicHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicbiostatisticsEuropean Society for Medical Oncologymagnitude of clinical benefit scalesingle arm studies

Identifiers

PMID28945867

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.