Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29056713›Full record

ReviewVeterinary sciences2016

Understanding the Osteosarcoma Pathobiology: A Comparative Oncology Approach.

Jyotika Varshney, Milcah C Scott, David A Largaespada, Subbaya Subramanian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Advancing therapy for osteosarcoma.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Jyotika VarshneyMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. varsh005@umn.edu.
Milcah C ScottMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. scot0340@umn.edu.
David A LargaespadaMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. larga002@umn.edu.
Subbaya SubramanianMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. subree@umn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is an aggressive primary bone tumor in humans and is among the most common cancer afflicting dogs. Despite surgical advancements and intensification of chemo- and targeted therapies, the survival outcome for osteosarcoma patients is, as of yet, suboptimal. The presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis or its recurrence after initial therapy is a major factor for the poor outcomes. It is thought that most human and canine patients have at least microscopic metastatic lesions at diagnosis. Osteosarcoma in dogs occurs naturally with greater frequency and shares many biological and clinical similarities with osteosarcoma in humans. From a genetic perspective, osteosarcoma in both humans and dogs is characterized by complex karyotypes with highly variable structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. Similar molecular abnormalities have been observed in human and canine osteosarcoma. For instance, loss of

Indexed as

canine osteosarcomacomparative oncologymicroRNAsosteosarcomaprognosis

Identifiers

PMID29056713
PMCPMC5644613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.