ArticleCureus2020
Contribution of Pathologists in Leading Clinical Cancer Research Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Interdisciplinary collaboration is often the key to advance cancer research. This research collaboration is frequently observed between oncologists and pathologists. While clinical cancer research is often led by oncologists, the leading role of pathologists is likely limited to laboratory-based and preclinical research. Therefore, the magnitude and characteristics of clinical studies led by pathologists is largely unknown. Objectives The objective of our study was to assess the quantity and quality of clinical cancer-related publications led by Saudi pathologists over a 10-year period. Methods A PubMed search was conducted between January 2008 and December 2017 to extract all published clinical articles regarding cancer by at least one Saudi pathologist with the collaboration of other cancer specialists. Information about articles and authors were collected. The level of evidence (LOE) was independently assessed by two authors. Two five-year periods (2008 - 2012 and 2013 - 2017) were compared using the relevant parameters. Results A total of 127 publications met our inclusion criteria and were included. Review articles (27%) were the most common type of publication. There were no experimental studies. The LOE was III and IV in 59.1% and 40.9% of the included publications, respectively. Comparing the two five-year periods, the number of publications (p < 0.001), publications in international journals (p = 0.004), and international collaborations (p < 0.001) increased in the second period. The LOE and journal impact factor were the same in the two periods. Conclusions The pathologist-led clinical cancer research in Saudi Arabia increased over time. Despite the observed increase in international collaboration and publications in international journals, the LOE was low (III/IV) and did not change over time.
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.