Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18813876›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2009

What is the translational efficacy of chemotherapeutic drug research in neuro-oncology? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of BCNU and CCNU in animal models of glioma.

S Amarasingh, M R Macleod, I R Whittle

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Is Participation in Cancer Phase I Trials Really Therapeutic?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Review
  14. The use of systematic reviews and reporting guidelines to advance the implementation of the 3Rs.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2015
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology.International journal of medical sciences · 2013
    Review
  18. Pharmacologic reduction of angiographic vasospasm in experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2012
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S AmarasinghDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, Scotland, UK.
M R Macleod
I R Whittle
University of Edinburgh · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe translational value of experimental therapeutic neuroscience research to clinical practice is highly variable. This has been particularly well demonstrated in the field of neuroprotective agents following either head injury or stroke. In this study we evaluate the efficacy of systemic BCNU and CCNU in experimental glioma models and how the experimental data has translated into clinical practice.

methodsA systematic review of the efficacy of BCNU and CCNU, against experimental rodent and murine in vivo glioma models was conducted. Selected articles were graded on a 15 point scale for scientific methodology. A stratified meta-analysis based on median-survival data and effect sizes was performed to generate global-efficacy estimates for BCNU and CCNU, and to produce 'weighted-mean effect-sizes' for individual sub-categories of selected study-characteristics.

resultsFourteen papers satisfied search criteria and encompassed 231 treatment comparisons in 2256 animals. The median methodology score was 9 (range 7-12/15). Global-efficacy estimates were BCNU 0.194 (95% CI -0.538 to 0.927) and CCNU 0.432 (95% CI -0.392 to 1.256), with CCNU being significantly more effective than BCNU. Because of these wide confidence intervals a beneficial or detrimental effect of either agent could not be confirmed. Most selected study-design characteristics (e.g. glioma cell line, drug dosage, drug scheduling, mode of drug administration, timing of therapy after glioma implantation but not animal used) significantly influenced the efficacy-results obtained. The methodological score did not influence efficacy-estimate.

conclusionThis review has found (i) experimental-design influenced the efficacy-data obtained and (ii) that there is highly variable outcome data for the efficacy of both BCNU and CCNU in experimental in vivo rodent and murine glioma models. In many ways these findings are analagous to the use of nitrosoureas in human malignant glioma. The statistically significant small beneficial effect of nitrosoureas in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents in human glioma was only noted after a meta-analysis of human randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingCarmustineDisease Models, AnimalDrug EvaluationGliomaHumansLomustineMeta-Analysis as TopicAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingCarmustineLomustine

Identifiers

PMID18813876
OpenAlexW2172140349

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.