Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37604591›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2023

Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer.

Naoko Sasamoto, Kevin M Elias

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Special Issue "Ovarian Cancer: Advances on Pathophysiology and Therapies".International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  13. Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naoko SasamotoObstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Kevin M EliasDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA kelias@bwh.harvard.edu.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk of death from ovarian cancer is highly associated with the clinical stage at diagnosis. Efforts to implement screening for ovarian cancer have been largely unsuccessful, due to the low prevalence of the disease in the general population and the heterogeneity of the various cancer types that fall under the ovarian cancer designation. A practical test for early detection will require both high sensitivity and high specificity to balance reducing the number of cancer deaths with minimizing surgical interventions for false positive screens. The technology must be cost-effective to deliver at scale, widely accessible, and relatively noninvasive. Most importantly, a successful early detection test must be effective not only at diagnosing ovarian cancer but also in reducing ovarian cancer deaths. Stepwise or multimodal approaches among the various areas under investigation will likely be required to make early detection a reality.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerOvarian NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPrevalenceSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID37604591
PMCPMC10626263
OpenAlexW4386033304

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.