Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26170620›Full record

SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2015

The role of Gliadel wafers in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM: a meta-analysis.

Wei-kang Xing, Chuan Shao, Zhen-yu Qi, Chao Yang, Zhong Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Monitoring and modulation of the tumor microenvironment for enhanced cancer modeling.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wei-kang XingDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Chuan ShaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Second Clinical Medical College of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Zhen-yu QiDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Chao YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Zhong WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Soochow University · CNNorth Sichuan Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandard treatment for high-grade glioma (HGG) includes surgery followed by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Insertion of carmustine wafers into the resection cavity as a treatment for malignant glioma is currently a controversial topic among neurosurgeons. Our meta-analysis focused on whether carmustine wafer treatment could significantly benefit the survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).

methodWe searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases without any restrictions on language using the keywords "Gliadel wafers", "carmustine wafers", "BCNU wafers", or "interstitial chemotherapy" in newly diagnosed GBM for the period from January 1990 to March 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies/clinical trials that compared treatments designed with and without carmustine wafers and which reported overall survival or hazard ratio (HR) or survival curves were included in this study. Moreover, the statistical analysis was conducted by the STATA 12.0 software.

resultsSix studies including two RCTs and four cohort studies, enrolling a total of 513 patients (223 with and 290 without carmustine wafers), matched the selection criteria. Carmustine wafers showed a strong advantage when pooling all the included studies (HR = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.49-0.81; P = 0.019). However, the two RCTs did not show a statistical increase in survival in the group with carmustine wafer compared to the group without it (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.18-1.41; P = 0.426), while the cohort studies demonstrated a significant survival increase (HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.44-0.79; P < 0.0001).

conclusionCarmustine-impregnated wafers play a significant role in improving survival when used for patients with newly diagnosed GBM. More studies should be designed for newly diagnosed GBM in the future.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsBrain NeoplasmsCarmustineChemistry, PharmaceuticalDecanoic AcidsDosage FormsGlioblastomaHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPolyestersRisk FactorsAntineoplastic AgentsCarmustinecarmustine, poliferprosan 20 drug combinationDecanoic AcidsDosage FormsPolyesterscarmustine waferschemotherapydrug implantsefficacyglioblastomameta-analysisprognosissafety

Identifiers

PMID26170620
PMCPMC4492653
OpenAlexW1650741782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.