Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30628170›Full record

ReviewMolecular oncology2019

Quality-assured research environments for translational cancer research.

Anton Berns

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

1 author.

Anton BernsOncode Institute, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Quality of Health CareHumansNeoplasmsTranslational Research, Biomedicalcomprehensive cancer centreEACSpreventionresearch qualitytranslational research

Identifiers

PMID30628170
PMCPMC6396364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.