SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide, play a major role in the improved survival of children and young adults with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. However, there is still controversy as to their comparative anti-tumour efficacy and possible adverse effects.
objectivesTo compare the possible effectiveness of cyclophosphamide with that of ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult patients with sarcoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 4), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to November 2008) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to November 2008) with pre-specified terms. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide for the treatment of different types of sarcoma in paediatric and young adult patients (aged less than 30 years at diagnosis). Chemotherapy other than either cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide should have been the same in both treatment groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the study selection. MAIN
resultsNo studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review were identified. AUTHORS'
conclusionsNo RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcoma in children and young adults were identified. Therefore no definitive conclusions can be made about the effects of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in these patients. Based on the currently available evidence we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. More high quality research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20166081What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.