SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2010
Lung cancer.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Risk of Malignancy in Patients with Asthma-COPD Overlap Compared to Patients with COPD without Asthma.Biomedicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women, with 80% to 90% of cases caused by smoking. Small cell lung cancer accounts for 20% of all cases, and is usually treated with chemotherapy. Adenocarcinoma is the main non-small cell pathology, and is treated initially with surgery. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for resectable and unresectable non-small cell lung cancer? What are the effects of treatments for small cell lung cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 96 systematic reviews and RCTs. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: chemotherapy (postoperative or preoperative, dose intensification), continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART), first-line platinum (or non-platinum)-based chemotherapy, molecular-targeted therapy, non-CHART hyperfractionated radiotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation, second-line chemotherapy (with single agent), second-line molecular-targeted therapy (with gefitinib or erlotinib), and thoracic irradiation (with or without chemotherapy).
Indexed as
Identifiers
21406127PMC3217762What 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.