ReviewMolecular oncology2019
Quality-assured research environments for translational cancer research.
Review in Molecular oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies to reduce the cancer burden and improve access to effective and affordable cancer interventions in Europe.Molecular oncology · 2025Article
- Bridging the Divide: A Review on the Implementation of Personalized Cancer Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
- Translational cancer research - a coherent cancer research continuum.Molecular oncology · 2019Review
- Boosting the social impact of innovative cancer research - towards a mission-oriented approach to cancer.Molecular oncology · 2019Article
- Towards a mission-oriented approach to cancer in Europe: an unmet need in cancer research policy.Molecular oncology · 2019Review
- Education aimed at increasing international collaboration and decreasing inequalities.Molecular oncology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to secure high-quality cancer care for increasing numbers of cancer patients in the upcoming decades, the complete continuum of cancer research and cancer care needs a thorough overhaul, with more emphasis on prevention and early detection, and a greater focus on the development of innovative treatments that are also scrutinised for effectiveness and quality-of-life aspects. Therefore, under-resourced research areas, such as primary prevention, early diagnosis/secondary prevention (Song et al., ; Wild et al., ) and outcomes research (Cavers et al., ), should be given more emphasis, whereas basic, preclinical and clinical cancer research requires more innovation and effective collaboration to develop more effective treatments at an affordable cost. Innovative collaborative research in this translational trajectory requires the participation of well-resourced and well-organised institutions that are committed to high scientific and ethical standards. Offering focused funding to distinct segments of this research continuum concomitant with incentives to aspire to high-quality standards is the most effective route to achieve these goals. Therefore, a rigorous quality assessment system for institutions operating in this research continuum is a high priority.
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.