Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29232472›Full record

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

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

M A Bookman, A Okamoto, G Stuart, N Yanaihara, D Aoki, M Bacon, K Fujiwara, A González-Martín, P Harter, J W Kim and 5 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prognostic significance of autophagy-related genesThe Journal of international medical research · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Update on new treatments for rare ovarian tumours.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

M A BookmanGOG, USA.
A OkamotoJGOG, Japan.
G StuartCCTG, Canada.
N YanaiharaJGOG, Japan.
D AokiJGOG, Japan.
M BaconGCIG.
K FujiwaraGOTIC, Japan.
A González-MartínGEICO, Spain.
P HarterAGO, Germany.
J W KimKGOG, South Korea.
J LedermannMRC/NCRI, UK.
E Pujade-LauraineGINECO, France.
M QuinnANZGOG, Australia.
K OchiaiJGOG, Japan.
5th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansNeeds AssessmentOvarian NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical trialconsensus statementovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID29232472
PMCPMC5834101

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.