ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021
Chinese Expert Consensus on Iodine
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety ofCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic factors and outcomes of CT-guided Iodine-125 seed brachytherapy for retroperitoneal lymph node metastases from a previously irradiated field in cervical carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Immune and inflammation: related factor alterations as biomarkers for predicting prognosis and responsiveness to PD-1 monoclonal antibodies in cervical cancer.Discover oncology · 2022Article
- Re-Irradiation for Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A State-of-the-Art Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment modality for recurrent cervical cancer (rCC) is limited, and the prognosis of these patients is poor. Seed implantation could be an important component of rCC management in the context of dose boost or salvage therapy after surgery or radiotherapy, which is characterized by a minimally invasive, high local dose, and rapidly does fall, sparing normal tissue. For patients with good performance status and lateral pelvic wall recurrence with an available puncture path, seed implantation was recommended, as well as for selected central pelvic recurrence and extra-pelvic recurrence. The combination of brachytherapy treatment planning system and CT guidance was needed, and three-dimensional printing templates could greatly improve the accuracy, efficiency, and quality of seed implantation to achieve a potential ablative effect and provide an efficient treatment for rCC. However, the recommendations of seed implantation were mainly based on retrospective articles and lack high-quality evidence, and multicenter prospective randomized studies are needed. In this consensus on iodine
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.