SynthesisMedicine2016
Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Interferon Combined With Dacarbazine Versus Dacarbazine Alone in Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Membrane-Coated Iron Oxide (FeInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2026Article
- Characterization of Immune Infiltration and Construction of a Prediction Model for Overall Survival in Melanoma Patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Microradiopharmaceutical for Metastatic Melanoma.Pharmaceutical research · 2017Article
- Genetics and epigenetics of melanoma.Oncology letters · 2016Article
- Current Advancements and Novel Strategies in the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma.Integrative cancer therapiesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN) combined with dacarbazine (DTIC) (experimental group) versus DTIC alone (control group) in cutaneous malignant melanoma. After searching all available databases, eligible articles were identified and subjected to quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3; combined relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for survival rates, response rates, and adverse events. Eight randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2014 involving 795 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with DTIC alone, IFN combined with DTIC significantly increased the overall response rate (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.21-2.08, P = 0.0008),the complete response rate (RR = 3.30, 95% CI 1.89-5.76, P < 0.0001), 2-year survival (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 0.99-2.54, P = 0.050) grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.32-4.02, P = 0.003), neurotoxicity (RR = 18.15, 95% CI 5.34-61.74, P < 0.00001), and flu-like symptoms (RR = 6.31, 95% CI 1.95-20.39, P = 0.002). The partial response rate, grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting, treatment-related, and 1- and 3-year survival were not significantly different between IFN combined with DTIC and DTIC alone. IFN combined with DTIC may moderately improve the complete response rate, but increases the incidence of adverse events and has no significant effect on 1- and 3-year survival in cutaneous malignant melanoma.
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.