SynthesisBMJ open2022
Erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib alone in patients with
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for of advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in Asian populations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Identification of Progression-Associated Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Based on the Integrated Analysis of RNA Sequencing Data From Platelets and Tumor Tissues.International journal of genomics · 2025Article
- Comparing Efficacy of Erlotinib and Bevacizumab Combination with Erlotinib Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Rhabdomyolysis in a patient with advanced lung cancer treated with osimertinib: a case report.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- Recent advances of anti-angiogenic inhibitors targeting VEGF/VEGFR axis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCombination treatment with erlotinib plus bevacizumab has the potential to become a standard treatment regimen for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched, from inception to 15 January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reported in English, assessing the efficacy of erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib monotherapy in patients with DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The main objective was to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects model was used where there was evidence for homogeneous effects.
resultsFour RCTs (reported across six publications) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 775 patients included in the pooled analyses of PFS, OS and ORR (387 in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab intervention group and 388 in the erlotinib group). Compared with the erlotinib alone group, the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group achieved a significantly prolonged PFS (HR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; p<0.00001; I
conclusionsErlotinib plus bevacizumab for the treatment of patients with
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.