Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36980917›Full record

ReviewGenes2023

Angela Schipani, Margherita Nannini, Annalisa Astolfi, Maria A Pantaleo

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Potential advantage of clinical exome sequencing inJournal of medical genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Tumor risks and surveillance outcomes inEndocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. [Gastrointestinal stromal tumors : Where do we stand?]Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Endocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Angela SchipaniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Margherita NanniniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2103-1960
Annalisa AstolfiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-0747
Maria A PantaleoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Azienda USL di Bologna · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loss of function of the succinate dehydrogenase complex characterizes 20-40% of all

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal Stromal TumorsDNA MethylationElectron Transport Complex IIGerm-Line MutationHumansMutationSuccinate DehydrogenaseElectron Transport Complex IISDHA protein, humanSuccinate Dehydrogenasegastrointestinal stromal tumorsSDHA germinal mutationsSDH-deficient GISTsuccinate dehydrogenase complex (SDH)

Identifiers

PMID36980917
PMCPMC10048394
OpenAlexW4323313661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read27
identifiers read1
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.