Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: an overview of randomised clinical trials. Advanced Ovarian Cancer Trialists Group.

Open access
·1991·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To consider the role of platinum and the relative merits of single agent and combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Formal quantitative overview using updated individual patient data from all available randomised trials (published and unpublished). SUBJECTS: 8139 patients (6408 deaths) included in 45 different trials. RESULTS: No firm conclusions could be reached. Nevertheless, the results suggest that in terms of survival immediate platinum based treatment was better than non-platinum regimens (overall relative risk 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.05); platinum in combination was better than single agent platinum when used in the same dose (overall relative risk 0.85; 0.72 to 1.00); and cisplatin and carboplatin were equally effective (overall relative risk 1.05; 0.94 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the past, randomised clinical trials of chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer have been much too small to detect the degree of benefit which this overview suggests is realistic for currently available chemotherapeutic regimens. Hence a new trial comparing cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP) with carboplatin has been launched and plans to accrue 2000 patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.303.6807.884

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-10-12
Volume
303
Issue
6807
Pages
884-893
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W4210704032
Cited by
300
References
1
FWCI
26.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.