SynthesisChinese medical journal2016
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Improving Survival Outcomes for Esophageal Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2016. 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.
- Author's Reply: Comparison of Outcomes with Semi-mechanical and Circular Stapled Intrathoracic Esophagogastric Anastomosis following Esophagectomy.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- The frontline of esophageal cancer treatment: questions to be asked and answered.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) treatment for patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of NCRT followed by surgery (NCRTS) with surgery alone (SA) for EC.
methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched up to August 2015 for all the published studies that investigated EC patients receiving either NCRTS or SA, and the reference lists were also manually examined for the eligible studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s) as effective size was determined to assess the 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates (SRs), postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Heterogeneity was determined using the Q-test. The Begg's test and Egger's test were used for assessing any potential publication bias.
resultsOf 1120 identified studies, 16 eligible studies were included in this analysis (involving 2549 patients). Overall, the pooled results suggested that NCRTS was associated with significantly improved 1-year (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), 3-year (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14-1.39), and 5-year (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.18-1.56) SRs. However, the results also indicated that NCRTS had no or little effect on postoperative morbidity (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.05) and postoperative mortality (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.56-2.44).
conclusionsCompared with SA, NCRTS can increase 1-, 3-, and 5-year SRs in patients with EC.
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.