Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34484488›Full record

ReviewOntario health technology assessment series2021

Ontario Health (Quality)

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  10. Stage Analysis of Breast Cancer Metabolomics: A System Biology Approach.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

1 author.

Ontario Health (Quality)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluoropyrimidine drugs (such as 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine) are used to treat different types of cancer. However, these drugs may cause severe toxicity in about 10% to 40% of patients. A deficiency in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme, encoded by the

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included systematic review and primary study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature review and conducted cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses with a half-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pre-treatment

resultsWe included 29 observational studies in the clinical evidence review, 25 of which compared the risk of severe toxicity in carriers of a

conclusionsStudies found that carriers of a

Indexed as

Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)NeoplasmsGenotypeHumansQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP)

Identifiers

PMID34484488
PMCPMC8382304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.