ArticleBMJ open2022
Comparative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for patients with borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Multidisciplinary team diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer: Current landscape and future prospects.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal dose and treatment modality of neoadjuvant radiotherapy applied for treating borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have been debated topics in oncology. The objective of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) is to study and compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant radiotherapy comprehensively using different doses in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of science, will be searched thoroughly to identify relevant studies published from 2006 to October 2020. Electronic searching by titles using neoadjuvant treatments for PDAC will be performed in the annual meetings of European Society of Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology (2018-2020). CLINICALTRIALS: gov will also be searched for grey literature. Two reviewers will perform search strategies and extract data independently. R0 resection rate and local control rate are defined as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, disease-free survival and acute and late grade 3 and grade 4 toxicities. For randomised control trials, the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, while the risk of bias for non-randomised, observational studies will be evaluated using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions. The quality of evidence will be evaluated using the version of Cochrane tool and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be conducted in the present NMA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will synthesise the evidence regarding dose schedule of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in patients with BRPC and LAPC. We hope the findings from this NMA will help clinicians and patients select the optimal modality and dose schedule of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with respect to patient-reported outcomes. As no primary data collection will be undertaken, no ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020222408.
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.