Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31123494›Full record

ReviewEcancermedicalscience2019

Ethics of cancer care: beyond biology and medicine.

Soumita Ghose, Vivek Radhakrishnan, Sanjay Bhattacharya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Gynaecological Cancers in India: The Less Heard Perspectives of Healthcare Providers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Exploring the experience of recurrence with advanced cancer for people who perceived themselves to be cancer free: a grounded theory study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Soumita GhoseAdministration and Policy, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata 700156, India.
Vivek RadhakrishnanDepartment of Clinical Haematology and Hematopoietic Cell Therapy, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata 700156, India.
Sanjay BhattacharyaDepartment of Microbiology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata 700156, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatable cancers are on the rise due to improved early diagnosis and more innovative treatments, and preventative strategies against cancer are becoming a global concern. With the rapidly increasing complexity of cancer treatment, a clear definition of what constitutes ethical cancer care has become a matter of great debate. This situation is more complex in a developing country where healthcare resources are limited. Doctors, nurses and public health professionals engaged in the prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and research of cancers are often posed with ethical dilemmas while making complex choices. With a special focus on low- and middle-income countries, this paper is intended to highlight these real-world ethical concerns facing those involved in the management of cancer patients. While taking a neutral view, this paper has adopted a theme-wise approach to discuss barriers in cancer care.

Indexed as

cancerethicsglobal healthIndiaLMICpreventionscreeningvaccination

Identifiers

PMID31123494
PMCPMC6467456

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.