ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2020
Efficacy and safety of S-1 maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious reports have demonstrated that S-1 has remarkable effects in the maintenance treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and has less toxic and side effects than conventional drugs.
aimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of S-1 maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.
methodsNinety-four patients with NSCLC admitted to our hospital from September 2015 to April 2018 were included in the study and divided into the S-1 group (47 cases) and the gemcitabine group (47 cases) by random digital table method. The S-1 group was treated with S-1, while the gemcitabine group received gemcitabine treatment. The clinical efficacy and quality of life of the patients after treatment in the two groups were evaluated.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the total effectiveness rate between the two groups (
conclusionS-1 maintenance therapy shows a significant therapeutic effect in patients with advanced NSCLC. It has the same clinical efficacy as gemcitabine, but with less toxic and side effects than conventional drugs.
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.