SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel plus epirubicin for human epidermal growth factor 2 -negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2025. 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.
- Analysis of risk factors in breast cancer patients with hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis caused by pegylated liposomal doxorubicin.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine (TX) and docetaxel plus epirubicin (TE) in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer.
methodsRelevant studies assessing the efficacy and safety of TX versus TE were systematically searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases until February 6, 2025. Progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical response, including the overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3/4 adverse events were compared.
resultsFour articles with moderate methodological quality were included. The pooled results revealed no significant differences in PFS (hazard ratio [HR] (95% confidence interval CI) = 0.86 (0.70, 1.05), P = 0.14), ORR (risk ratio [RR] (95%CI) = 1.02 (0.92, 1.14), P = 0.71), or DCR (RR (95%CI) = 1.02 (0.92, 1.14), P = 0.71) between the TX and TE groups. For grade 3/4 adverse events, only the combined results for neutropenia (RR (95%CI), 0.71 (0.52, 0.95); P = 0.02) and hand-foot syndrome (RR (95%CI) = 14.36 (3.45, 59.84); P = 0.0003) demonstrated significant differences between the two groups. No significant differences were observed in other adverse events, including febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, nail/hair toxicity, hepatic toxicity, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, infection, asthenia, and neuropathy.
conclusionIn patients with HER2-negative breast cancer, TX and TE have comparable survival benefits and efficacy. However, TX exhibits a reduced incidence of neutropenia, but a higher likelihood of hand-foot syndrome than that observed in TE.
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.