ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
Is there an efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Determining Front-Line Therapeutic Strategy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate whether patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWS) differ in terms of baseline characteristics, leading to an efficacy-effectiveness gap.
methodsA systematic literature reviews was conducted to identify RCTs and RWS with CRC, treated with bevacizumab (BEV), cetuximab (CET) or oxaliplatin combined with capecitabine (XELOX). Using random-effects meta-analyses compared the baseline characteristics and treatment effects of RCTs and RWS, overall and by drug. Correlation between treatment effects and baseline characteristics and study types were estimated using meta-regression analyses.
resultsTwo hundred and fifty-three studies were included. Compared with patients enrolled in RWS, the proportion of male patients in RCTs was 0.032 higher (P=0.004), the proportion of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance ≥2 was 0.085 less (P<0.001). No significant differences in treatment effects [progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR)] were found by overall analysis. But the OS of patients in RCTs was 4.184 higher (P=0.023) in the CET group. Meta-regression results showed that OS difference in the CET group was related to the difference in treatment lines, not related to other baseline characteristics and study types.
conclusionsNo efficacy-effectiveness gap was found in CRC between RCTs and RWS. CRC treatment effects Between RCTs and RWS had high consistency.
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.