Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31861620›Full record

ReviewGenes2019

Metastasis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Current Standing and Methodologies.

Marina Ayres Pereira, Iok In Christine Chio

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prognostic Significance of Microvascular Invasion in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marina Ayres PereiraInstitute for Cancer Genetics, Department of Genetics and Development, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Iok In Christine ChioInstitute for Cancer Genetics, Department of Genetics and Development, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3635-2679
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

Studying the role of eIF4A in Pancreatic CancerR01CA267870 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Christine Iok In Chio · 2022 to 2026
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA267870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an extremely aggressive disease with a high metastatic potential. Most patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease, at which the five-year survival rate is only 3%. A better understanding of the mechanisms that drive metastasis is imperative for the development of better therapeutic interventions. Here, we take the reader through our current knowledge of the parameters that support metastatic progression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and the experimental models that are at our disposal to study this process. We also describe the advantages and limitations of these models to study the different aspects of metastatic dissemination.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDisease ProgressionEpithelial-Mesenchymal TransitionHumansNeoplasm MetastasisPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisSurvival Ratemetastasismetastasis modelspancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID31861620
PMCPMC7016631
OpenAlexW2994931508

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.