Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29648572›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2018

When is crossover desirable in cancer drug trials and when is it problematic?

A Haslam, V Prasad

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Crossover does not confound, it informs:Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Clinical Benefit Scales and Trial Design: Some Statistical Issues.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022
    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

2 authors.

A HaslamDivision of Hematology Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute.
V PrasadDivision of Hematology Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute; Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine; Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. Electronic address: prasad@ohsu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCross-Over StudiesHumansNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID29648572
PMCPMC5961160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.