Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32802458›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020

Different treatment efficacies and side effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Low-Jia Li, Qingyun Chong, Lingzhi Wang, Goh Boon Cher, Ross A Soo

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The role of PI3K/AKT signaling pathway in gallbladder carcinoma.American journal of translational research · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Exploring the anticancer potential ofJournal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Low-Jia LiDepartment of Haematology-Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Qingyun ChongCancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Lingzhi WangCancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Goh Boon CherDepartment of Haematology-Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Ross A SooDepartment of Haematology-Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
National University Cancer Institute, Singapore · SGNational University Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differences in efficacy and toxicity between Asian and Caucasian patients with lung cancer treated with systemic chemotherapy is increasingly recognised. This is a major concern in the clinical setting as it influences outcomes and affect international harmonization of drug development. Interindividual variability of pharmacokinetics, where different genetic polymorphisms affect drug metabolism, transport, and receptor binding may account for the ethnic differences. Treatment efficacy and outcomes may also be explained by differences in diet and lifestyle, access to healthcare, cultural barriers and environmental exposure. Efforts made to design prospective studies investigating ethnic specific determinants to systemic therapy and individualise lung cancer treatment based on genetic makeup of patient are important.

Indexed as

AsianCaucasianscytotoxic chemotherapyethnicityLung cancer

Identifiers

PMID32802458
PMCPMC7399437
OpenAlexW2980170712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.