ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2019
Are data from general practices suitable for survival analyses in the field of breast cancer? A retrospective study conducted in the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2019. 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.
- Promotion on NLRC5 upregulating MHC-I expression by IFN-γ in MHC-I-deficient breast cancer cells.Immunologic research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the suitability of data obtained from general practices in the UK, France, and Germany for survival analyses in the field of breast cancer (BC). This study included women diagnosed with BC between 2004 and 2008 in 416, 322 and 210 general practices in the UK (n=4,085), France (n=1,198) and Germany (n=2,934), respectively. The outcomes of the study were the mean duration of follow-up in years and the proportion of participants followed for at least 5 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 7.5-9.6 years in the UK, 7.4-8.8 years in France and 6.3-8.5 years in Germany. The proportion of patients followed for at least 5 years was 80-91% in the UK, 68-78% in France, and 55-76% in Germany. The data obtained in general practices in the UK appeared to be more suitable for survival analyses in the field of BC when compared with those obtained in France and Germany.
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.