SynthesisMedicine2015
Comparison of Short-Course Radiotherapy Versus Long-Course Radiotherapy for Treatment of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Modern approaches to the management of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.CNS oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) versus long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) in the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC).PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched up to April 2015. Relevant data were extracted based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) was evaluated using modified Jadad scale; non-RCT was evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.Fourteen studies with 2239 patients were included. Results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between SCRT and long-course radiotherapy LCRT in 6-month overall survival rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88, 1.07, P = 0.55), 1-year overall survival rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.85, 1.04, P = 0.22), motor function improvement (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.81, 1.13, P = 0.63), no change on motor function (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.88, 1.09), P = 0.74], and deterioration on motor function (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.71, 1.31, P = 0.78). Compared with SCRT, LCRT significantly increased 6-month local control rate (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.80, 0.95, P = 0.002), 1-year local control rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.97, P = 0.02), and 2-year local control rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.79, 0.87, P < 0.00001).Both LCRT and SCRT provided similar survival rates and functional outcome, but LCRT showed better local control rates than SCRT. However, considering low cost and good patient's compliance, SCRT may be a better choice.
Indexed as
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.