ArticleTzu chi medical journal
The updated network meta-analysis of the therapeutic efficacies of lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. 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.
- Charting the blueprint: a bibliometric analysis reveals future strategies in lung cancer targeted therapy (2003-2025).Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Lung cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. We aim to investigate the most effective treatments for advanced/nonadvanced stages of lung cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases to investigate the treatment efficacies of lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was used to identify the top five most effective therapeutic strategies. A total of 157 studies were collected with a cumulative total of 164,678 participants. Results: The results showed that the best top five treatments: (1) for advanced lung cancer in response rate, were Chemo + Chemotherapy + Targeted Therapy, Cell therapy + Immunotherapy, Targeted Therapy + Radiotherapy, Chemoradiotherapy + Immunotherapy, and Chemotherapy + Chemoradiotherapy with cumulative probabilities 50.5, 49.6, 47.7, 46.0, and 45.6%; (2) for advanced lung cancer in progression-free survival (PFS) rate, were Targeted + Radiotherapy, Targeted + Others Therapy, Targeted + Targeted Therapy, Immu + Immu + Chemo Therapy, and Chemoradiotherapy with cumulative probabilities 99.5, 82.8, 44.9, 36.5, and 33.6%; (3) for nonadvanced lung cancer in response rate, were Chemoradiotherapy + Immu, Chemoradiotherapy + Targeted therapy, Chemoradiotherapy + Others, Chemotherapy + Surgery, and Radiotherapy + Others with cumulative probabilities 79.1, 74.9, 66.9, 60.4, and 54.2%; (4) for non-advanced lung cancer in PFS rate, were Chemo + Surgery, Chemoradiotherapy + Targeted, Surgery, Surgery + Radiotherapy, and Chemoradiotherapy + Others with cumulative probabilities 88.3, 86.1, 78.3, 73.1, and 50.8%. Conclusion: We present the latest and most effective therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced or nonadvanced stages of lung cancer.
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.