ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2014
Effectiveness and safety of s-1-based therapy compared with 5-Fluorouracil-based therapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of S-1 monotherapy or combination therapy as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolization with oxaliplatin plus S-1 concurrent chemoradiotherapy can improve the pathological remission rate in locally advanced rectal cancer: a comparative study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Trial
- Concurrent radiotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin versus concurrent radiotherapy with cisplatin alone for the treatment of locally advanced cervical carcinoma: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2016Trial
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection followed by chemoradiotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin for esophageal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy (SBT) versus 5-fluorouracil-based therapy (FBT) for advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). Methods. A meta-analysis of all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using RevMan 5.1.0 software. Results. A total of 1625 patients from twelve RCTs including 820 patients in the SBT group and 805 patients in the FBT group were available for analysis. The meta-analysis of overall survival (hazards ratio HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.80-1.10), progression-free survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.91-1.18), and overall response rate (odds ratio OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.00-1.53) showed no statistical significance between SBT group and FBT group. The statistically significant differences in the meta-analysis indicated less incidence of graded 3-4 neutropenia (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35-0.68) and nausea/vomit (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23-0.72) in the SBT group, and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, diarrhea, and treatment-related deaths between two groups. Conclusions. SBT had similar efficacy and better safety than FBT and was an attractive alternative to FBT for patients of ACRC, but further investigations in different populations would be needed to confirm it.
Identifiers
What 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.