Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30636891›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2019

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer.

Meisser Madera Anaya, Juan Victor Ariel Franco, Mónica Ballesteros, Ivan Solà, Gerard Urrútia Cuchí, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Evidence Mapping of the Treatments for Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Traditional Chinese Medicine for Essential Hypertension: A Clinical Evidence Map.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Meisser Madera AnayaDepartment of Research, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia, mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.
Juan Victor Ariel FrancoDepartment of Research, Cochrane Argentina, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mónica BallesterosIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain, mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.
Ivan SolàIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain, mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.
Gerard Urrútia CuchíIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain, mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.
Xavier Bonfill CospIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain, mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This evidence mapping aims to describe and assess the quality of available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) on treatments for oral cancer. Materials and methods: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos and The Cochrane Library were conducted to identify SRs on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of SRs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool. We organized the results according to identified Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and presented the evidence mapping in tables and a bubble plot. Results: Fifteen SRs met the eligibility criteria, including 118 individual reports, of which 55.1% were randomized controlled clinical trials. Ten SRs scored "Critically low" methodological quality. We extracted 30 PICOs focusing on interventions such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy; 18 PICOs were for resectable oral cancer, of which 8 were reported as beneficial. There were 12 PICOs for unresectable oral cancer, of which only 2 interventions were reported as beneficial. Conclusion: There is limited available evidence on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of most included SRs scored "Critically low". The main beneficial treatment reported by authors for patients with resectable oral cancer is surgery alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Evidence about the benefits of the treatments for unresectable oral cancer is lacking. These findings highlight the need to address future research focused on new treatments and knowledge gaps in this field, and increased efforts are required to improve the methodology quality and reporting process of SRs on treatments for oral cancer.

Indexed as

buccal tumorevidence-based medicineevidence synthesismouth neoplasmsoral carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID30636891
PMCPMC6307675

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.