ArticleMedicine2020
Comparative efficacy of antiangiogenic treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma is the most common malignant primary brain tumor which has highly expressed vascular endothelial growth factor. To date, various antiangiogenic drugs have been investigated in clinical trials but with no overall conclusion, especially for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM). In this study, Bayesian network meta-analysis will be used to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the results of different clinical trials, and assess the efficacy of different antiangiogenic drugs on nGBM.
methodsIn order to find more comprehensive information about the application of antiangiogenic drugs in nGBM patients, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized controlled trials. We also reviewed their reference lists to avoid omissions. Cochrane risk of bias tool (V.1.4.3) and Stata (V.15.0) will be used to assess the methodological quality of this review.
resultsThis study will provide reliable evidence for different antiangiogenic therapies in nGBM patients.
conclusionWe will evaluate the relative effectiveness of different antiangiogenic drugs and rank each intervention in nGBM patients through prognosis to provide decision-making reference on which method to choose for clinicians. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019146537.
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.