ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018
Impact of
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Trial of Conventional Versus Conventional Plus Fluciclovine (International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022Trial
- A survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists on PET-based radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Gallium-68-Labeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-11 PET/CT of Prostate and Nonprostate Cancers.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2019Article
- Article
- Multimodal imaging for radiation therapy planning in patients with primary prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methods25 out of 159 patients with primary PC who underwent
results81 (64.3%) of 126 LNs were covered by the CTV with a complete coverage of all positive LNs inside the respective radiation volume in 11 of 25 patients (44%). LNs that were not covered by the CTV included (para-aortic,) common-iliac, pre-sacral, obturatoric, para-rectal, para-vesical and pre-acetabular locations. In a statistical analysis neither the Gleason score, nor the PSA value, nor the calculated risk with the Roach formula correlated with LNs being inside or outside of the CTV in this patient group.
conclusion
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.