ArticleMedicine2021
Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer: A protocol for systemic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin‑bound paclitaxel compared with solvent‑based paclitaxel in adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: A retrospective study.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Extensive review on breast cancer its etiology, progression, prognostic markers, and treatment.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- Article
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 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has exhibited clinical efficacy in breast cancer treatment, but toxicities can be yielded more at the same time. We did this meta-analysis aiming to unambiguously compare nab-PTX with conventional solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer patients of all stages.
methodPubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical database, and WangFang database were searched for head-to-head randomized controlled trials of nab-PTX and solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer. Other sources will also be searched like Google Scholar and gray literatures. Two researchers will independently search the database and extract data from the articles. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Objective tumor response rate, chemotherapy completion rate after 4 or 6 cycles, and toxicity will be primary outcomes. Disease control rate, overall survival, and progression-free survival/disease-free survival will be included in secondary outcomes. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was used for dichotomous variables while hazard ratio was used for time-to-event outcomes. The following 3 data sets will all be considered when synthesizing the data: intention-to-treat population, those who actually received taxanes treatment, and those who were actually assessed. All the analyses were done using Review Manager Software 5.3. Any disagreements in study selection, data collection, and analysis will be resolved by a third investigator. RESULTS AND
conclusionThis study is aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-PTX compared with PTX in breast cancer treatment as well as to find the best dose or schedule and identify the benefit population. This meta-analysis could provide evidence for clinicians to make a better choice between nab-PTX and PTX in different specific contexts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019117912.
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.