CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Neuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsUrinary and Genital Oncology Studies

New MRC guidance on evaluating complex interventions

Anderson, R.·2008·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.a1937
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of the urinary tract are rare, and the urinary bladder is the the most common primary site. Primary ureteric NET is rarer with under 80 cases reported in the literature thus far. Most of these tumours are of the high-grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma subtype, which has a worse prognosis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has a proven role in the management of NET of the bladder as it downstages the tumour, which may add to significant recurrence-free survival and overall survival. We report the successful management of a patient with locally advanced small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the ureter, who had a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin. He subsequently received adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiation and is recurrence-free at a follow-up of 1 year.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.a1937

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The MRC framework emphasizes the need for formative and pilot studies during the development of a complex intervention.

    “The MRC framework emphasizes the need for formative and pilot studies during the development of a complex intervention.”

    From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [91]

  • Phase 4 (implementation) studies are needed both to establish how best to implement the intervention into routine practice and to determine whether the benefits shown in the trial manifest outside the trial environment, and can also identify unintended adverse effects.

    “Phase 4 (implementation) studies are needed both to establish how best to implement the intervention into routine practice and to determine whether the benefits shown in the trial manifest outside the trial environment. Phase 4 studies can also identify unintended adverse effects [90,91].”

    From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [91]

  • The MRC framework suggests a phased approach, with early work (Phases 0 to 2) consisting of systematic literature reviews, theoretical work, modeling studies, qualitative studies, studies to confirm the proposed pathway of action and identify appropriate intermediary outcomes, and pilot studies to optimize both the intervention and the trial parameters.

    “It suggests a phased approach, with early work (Phases 0 to 2) consisting of systematic literature reviews to identify what is already known, theoretical work to establish an appropriate theoretical foundation, modeling studies to establish potential rate-limiting steps and population impact, qualitative studies to determine acceptability and feasibility, studies to confirm (or deny) the proposed”

    From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [91]

  • The MRC framework was first published in 2000 and revised in 2008.

    “This framework was first published in 2000 [90] and revised in 2008 [91].”

    From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [91]

  • The Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing, evaluating, and implementing complex interventions offers an appropriate framework for research on Web-based interventions.

    “Therefore, the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing, evaluating, and implementing complex interventions offers an appropriate framework for research on Web-based interventions.”

    From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [91]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Anderson, R.
Affiliations
Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Anderson, R.
ORCID
Anderson, R.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-10-22
Volume
337
Issue
oct22 1
Pages
a1937-a1937
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.a1937
OpenAlex
W2158408477
Cited by
172
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Urinary and Genital Oncology Studies
Keywords
neuroendocrine tumors, small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, etoposide, cisplatin, pathological complete response, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diffusion of Innovation, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Therapeutics, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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