ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2023
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.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combinationFrontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring cellular plasticity and resistance mechanisms in lung cancer: Innovations and emerging therapies.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Unveiling the immunomodulatory dance: endothelial cells' function and their role in non-small cell lung cancer.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Advancements in understanding cardiotoxicity of EGFR- TKIs in non-small cell lung cancer treatment and beyond.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
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
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and contrast the efficacy and safety of combining erlotinib and bevacizumab with erlotinib alone in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors searched databases such as PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing erlotinib plus bevacizumab with erlotinib in NSCLC patients. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were the outcomes of interest. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) were estimated utilizing both fixed- and random-effect models. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Nine studies comprising 1698 patients with NSCLC were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 850 were treated with erlotinib plus bevacizumab, and 848 with erlotinib. The erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination significantly prolonged PFS (HR, 0.62, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.70,
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.