SynthesisThe breast journal2025
Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, and Neoadjuvant Chemo-Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The breast journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neoadjuvant therapy before surgery offers varying benefits as a well-established treatment option for breast cancer. This study specifically evaluated the effectiveness of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), and neoadjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy (NCET) in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. This meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searching was conducted to retrieve articles from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang. The primary outcome measured by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) focused on assessing pooled effect sizes. Random-effects or fixed-effect models were conducted according to the existence of statistical heterogeneity. A total of 15 eligible articles were included in the analysis. The results indicated clinical response (CR) (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.73;
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.