ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2024
Introducing a Comprehensive Score of Systemic Anticancer Treatment Relevance.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2024. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Treatment patterns in systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) are extremely varied and complex. While professional society guidelines exist that suggest recommended treatment strategies, these guidelines are produced through an extremely laborious and sometimes opaque manual process, making it impossible for such guidelines to cover all relevant treatment scenarios. To complement these manually curated guidelines, we leveraged a database of 5818 clinical trials and 7012 supporting references from 1943-present to calculate a quantifiable "relevance score". In a pilot evaluation, this score was strongly associated with professional society guideline recommendations, while also providing relevance information on thousands of additional therapies. We show that this score also accurately illustrates trends in SACT adoption over time. We foresee that this score, which comprehensively evaluates the relevance of SACT overall and by cancer subtype, will have utility for clinical practitioners as well as researchers in real-world data.
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.