Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31385964›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2017

Phase I cancer clinical trials.

Juan R Cabrera, Jennie W Taylor, Annette M Molinaro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Juan R CabreraUniversity of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 505 Parnassus Ave. Rm. M779, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.R.C.; A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1450 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158 (A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 400 Parnassus Ave. Rm. A808, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.W.T.).
Jennie W TaylorUniversity of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 505 Parnassus Ave. Rm. M779, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.R.C.; A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1450 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158 (A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 400 Parnassus Ave. Rm. A808, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.W.T.).
Annette M MolinaroUniversity of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 505 Parnassus Ave. Rm. M779, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.R.C.; A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1450 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158 (A.M.M.); University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurological Surgery, 400 Parnassus Ave. Rm. A808, San Francisco, CA 94143 (J.W.T.).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An efficient phase I trial is a crucial step in developing a new drug in a safe and timely manner. The main objective of a phase I trial is to determine the maximum tolerated dose in order to recommend the dose for a phase II trial. There are many designs that are implemented in phase I trials. Rule-based designs such as the traditional 3 + 3 method and rolling six design are easy to implement and assess for safety using a conservative approach. Model-based designs such as the continual reassessment method and the time-to-event continual reassessment method use mathematical models to increase the precision of dose estimation. The advantages and shortcomings of these designs, along with other designs, are reviewed.

Indexed as

clinical trialsphase Itrial design.

Identifiers

PMID31385964
PMCPMC6655360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.