ArticleCancer epidemiology2018
The scientific impact and value of large, NCI-sponsored randomized phase III cancer chemoprevention trials.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-Cancer Effects of Green Tea Polyphenols Against Prostate Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cancer research groups of the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network have a history of successful conduct of large randomized phase III trials of chemoprevention for cancer. An important question for funding agencies is whether the conduct of large chemoprevention trials provides strong scientific return on investment.
methodsWe evaluated the scientific impact of four large chemoprevention trials - two for breast cancer and two for prostate cancer - using citation analysis, a bibliometric technique. The results were compared to the scientific impact of a series of treatment trials conducted over the same 20-year time period (1991-2010, inclusive). Average annual citation counts were compared using t-tests. Scientific impact was also assessed relative to trial costs.
resultsTwenty-seven treatment trials with 17,208 patients and four chemoprevention trials with 87,550 patients were examined. The mean annual citation rate for primary articles was higher for chemoprevention trials compared to treatment trials (188.1 vs. 40.4, p = .001). For both primary and secondary article publications, mean annual citations for articles associated with chemoprevention trials were also higher (483.9 vs. 69.0, p = .0003). Large chemoprevention trials were estimated to provide 50% more total citations from primary and secondary articles on a cost-adjusted basis.
conclusionBased on these criteria, the scientific impact of large phase III cancer chemoprevention trials was very high in absolute terms, and as good as or better than that of treatment trials after accounting for expenditure. For appropriate scientific questions, large chemoprevention trials provide a good scientific return on investment for federal funding agencies.
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.