ReviewThe British journal of radiology2024
Is it too early to recommend local treatment in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a plea for equipoise.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (OMD NSCLC) has been proposed to bridge the spectrum between non-metastatic and widely metastatic states and is perceived as an opportunity for potential cure if removed. Twelve clinical trials on local treatment have been reported, yet none are conclusive. These trials informed the development of a joint clinical practice guideline by the American & European Societies for Radiation Oncology, which endorses local treatment for OMD NSCLC. However, the heterogeneity between prognostic factors within these trials likely influenced outcomes and can only support guidance at this time. Caution against an uncritical acceptance of the guideline is discussed, as strong recommendations are offered based on expert opinion and inconclusive evidence. The guideline is also examined by a patient's caregiver, who emphasizes that uncertain evidence impedes shared decision making.
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.