Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32405737›Full record

ReviewClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2020

Onco-Cardiology: Consensus Paper of the German Cardiac Society, the German Society for Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Defects and the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology.

Tienush Rassaf, Matthias Totzeck, Johannes Backs, Carsten Bokemeyer, Michael Hallek, Denise Hilfiker-Kleiner, Andreas Hochhaus, Diana Lüftner, Oliver J Müller, Ulrich Neudorf and 5 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2020. 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
–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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. The Heidelberg cardio-oncology unit (COUNT)-a possible blueprint for improved care of cardio-oncological patients.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022
    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

15 authors.

Tienush RassafDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. tienush.rassaf@uk-essen.de.
Matthias TotzeckDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Johannes BacksInstitute for Experimental Cardiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carsten BokemeyerDepartment of Oncology, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with the Section Pneumology, Centre for Oncology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael HallekDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology ABCD, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Denise Hilfiker-KleinerDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Andreas HochhausDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany.
Diana LüftnerDepartment of Haematology, Oncology and Tumour Immunology, Charité, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Oliver J MüllerDepartment of Internal Medicine III (Cardiology, Angiology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Ulrich NeudorfDepartment of Pediatrics III, West German Heart and Vascular Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Roman PfisterClinic III for Internal Medicine, General and Interventional Cardiology, Electrophysiology, Angiology, Pneumology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stephan von HaehlingDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center Göttingen, University of Göttingen Medical Center and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), partner site Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Lorenz H LehmannDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Johann BauersachsDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Committee for Clinical Cardiovascular Medicine of the German Cardiac Society

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The acute and long-lasting side effects of modern multimodal tumour therapy significantly impair quality of life and survival of patients afflicted with malignancies. The key components of this therapy include radiotherapy, conventional chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies. In addition to established tumour therapy strategies, up to 30 new therapies are approved each year with only incompletely characterised side effects. This consensus paper discusses the risk factors that contribute to the development of a potentially adverse reaction to tumour therapy and, in addition, defines specific side effect profiles for different treatment groups. The focus is on novel therapeutics and recommendations for the surveillance and treatment of specific patient groups.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesCombined Modality TherapyGermanyHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasmsQuality of LifeRadiotherapyRisk FactorsAntineoplastic AgentsCancer therapyCardio-oncologyCardiotoxicityChemotherapySurvivorship programs

Identifiers

PMID32405737
PMCPMC7515958

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.