SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular Complications Associated with Uro-Oncology Treatments-A Primer for the Clinician.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cabazitaxel (CAB) has been approved for the treatment of patients with progressed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after receiving docetaxel. To assess the efficacy and safety of CAB in mCRPC patients through systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: Randomized controlled studies on the treatment of mCRPC with CAB in PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Relevant studies that met pre-set criteria were determined, and the quality of included studies was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health-Quality Assessment Tool. After the data was extracted, data analysis was conducted in R 4.3.2. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and serious adverse events (SAEs) were used as the primary outcomes, and HR (hazard ratio) or RR (risk ratio) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CrI) were calculated as effect sizes. Results: A total of 13 studies were included, involving 5,814 patients. The overall risk of bias for 13 studies was low. The results showed that CAB 25 mg/m Conclusion: CAB is an effective treatment in mCRPC, and combining it with other treatment methods may enhance efficacy, but attention should be paid to the occurrence of adverse events.
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.