Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32825103›Full record

ReviewCancers2020

Practical Review on Preclinical Human

Aurélie Soubéran, Aurélie Tchoghandjian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Applications of organoid technology to brain tumors.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Biomaterial-basedCancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2023
    Review
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.

Aurélie SoubéranCNRS, INP, Institute of Neurophysiopathology, Aix-Marseille University, 13005 Marseille, France.
Aurélie TchoghandjianCNRS, INP, Institute of Neurophysiopathology, Aix-Marseille University, 13005 Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fifteen years after the establishment of the Stupp protocol as the standard of care to treat glioblastomas, no major clinical advances have been achieved and increasing patient's overall survival remains a challenge. Nevertheless, crucial molecular and cellular findings revealed the intra-tumoral and inter-tumoral complexities of these incurable brain tumors, and the essential role played by cells of the microenvironment in the lack of treatment efficacy. Taking this knowledge into account, fulfilling gaps between preclinical models and clinical samples is necessary to improve the successful rate of clinical trials. Since the beginning of the characterization of brain tumors initiated by Bailey and Cushing in the 1920s, several glioblastoma models have been developed and improved. In this review, we focused on the most widely used

Indexed as

explantsglioblastomasorganoidsorganotypic slicespreclinical 3D cancer modelsspheroidstumoroidstumorospheres

Identifiers

PMID32825103
PMCPMC7563542

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.