ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Comparing the Therapeutic Efficacies of Lung Cancer: Network Meta-Analysis Approaches.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, reduction of nuclear power generation and the use of coal-fired power for filling the power supply gap might have increased the risk of lung cancer. This study aims to explore the most effective treatment for different stages of lung cancer patients.
methodsWe searched databases to investigate the treatment efficacy of lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was used to explore the top three effective therapeutic strategies among all collected treatment methodologies.
resultsA total of 124 studies were collected from 115 articles with 171,757 participants in total. The results of network meta-analyses showed that the best top three treatments: (1) in response rate, for advanced lung cancer were Targeted + Targeted, Chemo + Immuno, and Targeted + Other Therapy with cumulative probabilities 82.9, 80.8, and 69.3%, respectively; for non-advanced lung cancer were Chemoradio + Targeted, Chemoradi + Immuno, and Chemoradio + Other Therapy with cumulative probabilities 69.0, 67.8, and 60.7%, respectively; (2) in disease-free control rate, for advanced lung cancer were Targeted + Others, Chemo + Immuno, and Targeted + Targeted Therapy with cumulative probabilities 93.4, 91.5, and 59.4%, respectively; for non-advanced lung cancer were Chemo + Surgery, Chemoradio + Targeted, and Surgery Therapy with cumulative probabilities 80.1, 71.5, and 43.1%, respectively.
conclusionThe therapeutic strategies with the best effectiveness will be different depending on the stage of lung cancer patients.
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.