ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021
A Comparison of Chemotherapy Used with and without Apatinib for Patients with Ovarian Carcinoma Who Progressed after Standard Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. 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, 3 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis was conducted to compare the therapeutic efficacy and clinical safety of the combination therapy of apatinib plus chemotherapy with that of chemotherapy alone in patients with refractory or recurrent ovarian carcinoma (OC).
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) or case-control studies (CCS) were identified by searching Chinese and English databases up to October 31, 2020. The risk of methodological bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to assess trial quality. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the therapeutic effects and adverse drug reactions. Subgroup analyses of study type, study sample size, dosage of apatinib, and chemotherapy regimen between treatment group and control group were performed. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot symmetry, Begg-Mazumdar test, and Egger test. The robustness of our results was presented by removing the trial one by one.
resultsFifteen eligible studies covering 1,020 patients were included in this review and meta-analysis. Among these studies, 8 were RCTs, and 7 were CCSs. Compared with chemotherapy alone, apatinib plus chemotherapy significantly increased objective response rate (OR = 3.55; 95% CI 2.31 to 5.47), disease control rate (OR = 3.04; 95% CI 2.12 to 4.36), and overall survival (OR = 5.03; 95% CI 3.16 to 6.90).
conclusionsThe combination treatment of apatinib plus chemotherapy provides better clinical benefits for OC patients when compared to chemotherapy alone and should be recommended for suitable patients with OC after the failure of standard regimens. However, further investigation into future large-scale prospective randomized research is still needed.
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.