ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Evaluating the effectiveness of targeted therapies for thyroid carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Bayesian network meta-analysis: evaluating the efficacy and safety of targeted therapies in metastatic or advanced radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutations in thyroid carcinomas: implications in precision oncology-a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, most of the targeted therapies for thyroid carcinoma are in the clinical trial stage, and there is still no strong evidence to confirm their clinical effect. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcome of targeted therapies and provide quantitative evidence.
methodOvid, PubMed, EMBAS, ClinicalTrails.gov, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched until September 1, 2019. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) studies that compared the treatment of thyroid carcinoma with the targeted therapies of utility and complications were analyzed.
resultsThe study included 5 studies with a total of 1,615 patients, with 991 cases in the drug group and 624 cases in the placebo group. The meta-analysis indicated that compared with the placebo group, the progression-free survival (PFS) rate of the drug group was significantly improved. The PFS of the drug group was 10.8 to 30.5 months, compared with 4 to 19.3 months for the placebo group (6 months PFS: OR =3.23, 95% CI: 2.57 to 4.05, P<0.00001, 12 months PFS: OR =3.38, 95% CI: 2.58 to 4.42, P<0.00001, 18 months PFS: OR =2.48, 95% CI: 1.74 to 3.54, P<0.00001). Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly in the study (6 months: OR =1.53, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.35, P=0.05, 12 months: OR =1.26, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.69, P=0.12, 18 months: OR =1.11, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.42, P=0.39). The incidence of adverse reactions in the drug group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (OR =4.76, 95% CI: 3.45 to 6.57, P<0.00001), and the subgroup of adverse reactions was still significantly higher than that in the placebo group.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis revealed that the targeted drugs can significantly prolong PFS in patients with thyroid carcinoma, but the targeted drugs did not prolong the OS. Although the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher than that of the placebo group, the patients were still tolerable in drug group.
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.