ArticleCancers2020
Combining Correlated Outcomes and Surrogate Endpoints in a Network Meta-Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Treatments.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Anti-inflammatory Agents on Major Depressive Disorder: A Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Predicted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for overall survival (OS) were calculated from the odds ratio (OR) for the overall response rate and/or HR for progression-free survival using multivariate random effects (MVRE) models. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 49 articles to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI±bevacizumab (Bmab)/cetuximab (Cmab)/panitumumab (Pmab), and FOLFOXIRI/CAPEOX±Bmab. The NMA showed significant OS improvement with FOLFOX, FOLFOX+Cmab, and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFIRI (HR = 0.84, 95% CrI = 0.73-0.98; HR = 0.76, 95% CrI = 0.62-0.94; HR = 0.80, 95% CrI = 0.66-0.96, respectively), as well as with FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFOXIRI (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.51-0.94 and HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.54-0.97, respectively). The odds of adverse events grade ≥3 were significantly higher for FOLFOX+Cmab vs. FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 2.34, 95% CrI = 1.01-4.66). Higher odds of events were observed for FOLFIRI+Pmab in comparison with FOLFIRI (OR = 2.16, 95% CrI = 1.09-3.84) and FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 3.14, 95% CrI = 1.51-5.89). FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Bmab showed high probabilities of being first- and second-line treatments in terms of the efficacy and safety, respectively. The findings of the efficacy and safety comparisons may support the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153640.
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.