Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40361992›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Debunking Myths and Misinformation in Cervical Cancer: A Narrative Review on Navigating Complex Treatment Choices in Locally Advanced Cases and Exploring Beyond Standard Protocols.

Mustafa Zelal Muallem, Ahmad Sayasneh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Mustafa Zelal MuallemDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Ahmad SayasnehDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0156-417X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer remains a significant health challenge globally, with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) representing a particularly complex subset due to its diverse definitions and varied treatment approaches. The absence of randomized controlled trials comparing the upfront radical surgery followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) or chemotherapy alone for clearly defined risk factors for LACC hinders the development of standardized treatment protocols, leading to disparities in patient outcomes across different healthcare settings. This paper seeks to underline the necessity of a consensus on the definition of LACC and aims to comprehensively and critically review the existing literature trying to harmonize treatment strategies and improve prognostic outcomes. Our analysis suggests a multimodal approach for treating FIGO IB3, IIA2, and selected IIB cases at facilities capable of delivering highly curative nerve-sparing surgical interventions, with the goal of bridging the gap in current treatment methodologies. Preliminary findings suggest that adopting a standardized definition could facilitate more consistent treatment outcomes and enhance comparative research.

Indexed as

chemoradiotherapylocally advanced cervical cancermultimodal therapypersonalized medicineradical surgery

Identifiers

PMID40361992
PMCPMC12072022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.