ReviewMed (New York, N.Y.)2026
Rethinking the role of synergy calculations in the next century of drug combination discovery.
Review in Med (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Panitumumab-Based EGFR Blockade in SMARCB1-Deficient Renal Medullary Carcinoma: Preclinical Basis and Prospective Clinical Activity.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Therapeutic strategies increasingly leverage drug combinations, yet preclinical drug synergy frameworks often hinder, rather than accelerate, the clinical translation of medicinal combinations. To modernize the field of drug combination discovery, a multidisciplinary group of practitioners collaborated to distill three key observations underlying successful and failed drug combinations in oncology. These observations are that (1) activity, not synergy, is the primary determinant of a combination's clinical success; (2) synergistic combinations, without disease specificity, commonly fail due to toxicity; and (3) antagonistic combinations are an important and understudied means of improving clinical outcomes. We support the validity of these observations with a mixture of theory, reanalysis of public databases, and review of the literature. Together, these observations argue for a paradigm shift in how preclinical drug combination studies are designed and interpreted to better align with the clinical goals of discovering safe and effective combination therapies.
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.