Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218640›Full record

SynthesisAging2022

Comparison of one-week versus three-week paclitaxel for advanced pan-carcinomas: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shitong Lin, Ting Peng, Yifan Meng, Canhui Cao, Peipei Gao, Ping Wu, Wenhua Zhi, Ye Wei, Tian Chu, Binghan Liu and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Shitong LinCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Ting PengCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Yifan MengDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Canhui CaoDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
Peipei GaoCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Ping WuCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Wenhua ZhiCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Ye WeiCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Tian ChuCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Binghan LiuCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Juncheng WeiCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Xiaoyuan HuangCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Wencheng DingCancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Cai ChengDivision of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paclitaxel remains the first-line chemotherapy regimen for many malignant tumors. However, prognosis and adverse events under different dosing regimens (one-week versus three-week treatment) remain contradictory in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Here, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to measure the efficacy and toxicities of these two dosing regimens. Four databases were systematically retrieved. RCTs comparing two paclitaxel dosing regimens for advanced malignant tumors with assessable outcomes (e.g., overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicities, response rates) were included. In total, 19 eligible RCTs involving 9 674 patients were included. Meta-analysis of pan-cancers revealed that weekly paclitaxel treatment was more beneficial regarding PFS compared to three-week paclitaxel treatment (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82-0.99,

Indexed as

CarcinomaPaclitaxelHumansProgression-Free SurvivalPaclitaxelmeta-analysisone-weekpaclitaxelpan-carcinomasthree-week

Identifiers

PMID35218640
PMCPMC8908930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.