Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33312694›Full record

ArticleFuture science OA2020

A retrospective analysis of eosinophilia as a predictive marker of response and toxicity to cancer immunotherapy.

Tharani Krishnan, Yoko Tomita, Rachel Roberts-Thomson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future science OA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Tumor-associated eosinophilia in a patient withTranslational cancer research · 2021
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tharani KrishnanMedical Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Yoko TomitaMedical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia 5011, Australia.
Rachel Roberts-ThomsonMedical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia 5011, Australia.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital · AUGTx (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate eosinophilia as a potential on-treatment biomarker for patients receiving cancer immunotherapy. MATERIALS &

methodsWe evaluated the association between eosinophilia and treatment response and toxicity in a retrospective cohort of patients receiving cancer immunotherapy.

resultsThe study involved 146 patients. Eosinophilia developed in 22%. Patients who developed eosinophilia were more likely to achieve disease control (p = 0.009), with every 0.1 × 10

conclusionEosinophilia is a potentially useful biomarker warranting further prospective clinical investigation.

Indexed as

biomarkercancereosinophiliaimmune checkpoint inhibitorsresponsetoxicity

Identifiers

PMID33312694
PMCPMC7720365
OpenAlexW3047063889

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.