ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
Trends in Volume, Timeliness, and Reporting Quality of Oncology Systematic and Scoping Reviews: A 25-Year Analysis.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic and scoping reviews synthesize evidence in oncology's fast-moving therapeutic landscape, informing clinical and policy decisions. However, little is known about how review volume has changed over time, how quickly reviews reach publication, or how often protocol registration is reported within review abstracts. We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000 to 9 October 2025) for oncology-focused articles labelled as systematic or scoping reviews, screened in duplicate by a human reviewer and a ChatGPT-5-assisted system, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Cancer subspecialty, search-to-publication interval, and abstract-level protocol registration status and registry type were extracted. Of 92,800 references, 49,378 (53%) were systematic (
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.