ArticleOncology letters2020
Evaluation of immunotherapy and targeted therapy treatment on renal cell carcinoma: A Bayesian network analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials have previously assessed various therapies for renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, there is currently a lack of direct comparisons between these therapies. The present study identified published studies on RCC through Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials and Clinical trials.gov that were written in the English language and published by February 2019. The data were selected and extracted independently by two reviewers. Standard pair-wise meta-analyses were performed using Stata. Network meta-analyses were subsequently performed using WinBUGS (version 1.4.3). The primary outcome of the present study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events of various targeted therapies. The results were presented as cumulative odds ratio, hazard ratio, corresponding 95% confidence interval and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, which was used to rank the probabilities and outcome of each treatment in RCC. A total of 31 eligible publications for 18 randomized controlled trials consisting of 11,498 participants were included in the present study. The network meta-analyses revealed that a combination of lenvantinib and everolimus ranked first out of 16 treatments in terms of PFS, OS and ORR (probability of 54.0, 53.4 and 61.0%, respectively).
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.