Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41613814›Full record

ArticleOncology research2026

An

Rebecca H Maggs, Marcus J Brookes, Kenneth S Rankin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Rebecca H MaggsTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Marcus J BrookesTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Kenneth S RankinTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) may eradicate residual malignant cells following sarcoma resection, through reactive oxygen species (ROS) mediated cytotoxicity, thus improve clinical outcomes. This study aims to assess the efficacy of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) as a photosensitizer in combination with red light (RL) for PDT of bone sarcoma cells Methods: Three bone sarcoma cell lines underwent treatment with 5-ALA and RL or sham-RL (SL). 5-ALA uptake was assessed using flow cytometry. Production of ROS was measured using CellROX Green staining and fluorescence microscopy. Cell viability was assessed using Cell Counting Kit-8 assays. Results: All cell lines showed significant 5-ALA uptake in comparison to the 0 mM control ( Conclusion: 5-ALA-based PDT led to the desired increased production of ROS and reduction in cell viability in all cell lines. These preliminary

Indexed as

Aminolevulinic AcidBone NeoplasmsOsteosarcomaPhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsSarcomaCell Line, TumorCell SurvivalHumansReactive Oxygen SpeciesRed LightAminolevulinic AcidPhotosensitizing AgentsReactive Oxygen Species5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA)Bone sarcomachondrosarcomaEwing sarcomaosteosarcomaphotodynamic therapy (PDT)

Identifiers

PMID41613814
PMCPMC12848749

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.