SynthesisJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal brachytherapy versus combined pelvic external beam radiotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy in managing intermediate to high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review assesses the efficacy and safety of EBRT + VBT versus VBT alone in intermediate- to high-risk endometrial cancer.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Ovid, and Scopus (until February 18, 2025). Studies comparing EBRT + VBT to VBT alone were included. The primary outcome was pelvic recurrence rate, while secondary outcomes included distant recurrence, overall survival, and toxicity. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB-2, ROBINS-I), and meta-analysis (random-effects models in RevMan) were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PROSPERO registration: CRD420250654411.
resultsEight studies comprising 2,672 patients met inclusion criteria (1,347 received EBRT + VBT; 1,325 had VBT alone). EBRT + VBT significantly reduced pelvic recurrence (OR 0.14, p = 0.001) but showed no difference in vaginal recurrence (OR 0.25, p = 0.14), distant metastasis (OR 0.78, p = 0.45) or overall survival (HR 0.82, p = 0.29, I
conclusionEBRT + VBT improves pelvic control but does not enhance survival and increases toxicity. VBT alone remains a viable option, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.
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.