SynthesisZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2020
[Efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy versus Surgery for the Treatment of Early Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis].
Synthesis in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 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.
- [A Case of New Rapidly Progressing Ground-glass Nodule Lung Adenocarcinoma Near Primary Lesion after Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the clinical efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer through evidence based medicine analysis.
methodsA systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and Wan Fang databases to find studies published before June 2020. Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the eligibility. All of the statistical analyses were performed using Stata 13.0. Subgroup analysis were performed according to the score matching study and operation type (lobectomy, segmentectomy and thoracoscopic assisted surgery).
resultsFinally, 14 articles were included, including 15,841 cases in SBRT group and 17,708 cases in operation group. 10 articles used propensity score matching methods for survival analysis. Thirteen were retrospective cohort studies and one was randomized controlled trial. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival rate of the surgery group and the SBRT group was statistically significant. The overall survival rate of the SBRT group (HR=1.51, 95%CI: 1.31-1.74) was inferior to that of the surgery group. In the subgroup analysis of the surgical type, there was no statistical difference between the SBRT group and each surgical type. The difference of overall survival rate between SBRT group and surgery group was statistically significant (HR=1.66, 95%CI: 1.45-1.90) in studies of propensity score matching. There was no statistically significant difference in cancer-specific survival between the surgery and SBRT groups (HR=1.12, 95%CI: 0.83-1.52).
conclusionsThe overall survival rate of surgical treatment is better than that of SBRT, but it has no obvious advantages in cancer specific survival rate.
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.