SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Survival outcomes in IIIC cervical cancer by treatment strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare survival outcomes of patients with stage IIIC cervical cancer based on different treatment strategies.
methodStudies reporting survival of cervical cancer patients in IIIC stage were identified through systematic searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang data, and the hazard ratios (HRs) of survival outcomes were calculated based on different treatment strategies: radical hysterectomy (RH) group versus radical chemoradiotherapy (RCRT) group. Heterogeneity in the pooled data was assessed using the I² statistic.
resultsWe meta-analyzed data from nine studies involving 6,793 patients, who were assigned to different treatment strategies: RH group, 3840 patients (56.5%) and RCRT group, 2,953 patients (43.5%). High heterogeneity was observed across studies. Compared to the RCRT group, the RH group showed similar overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.04, I² =83.4%), disease-free survival (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23-2.04, I² =88.3%) and progression-free survival (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.10-4.36, I² =91.4%).
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests no statistically significant survival difference between RCRT and RH in IIIC cervical cancer. These findings don't contradict the NCCN recommendation, but the high heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals warrant cautious interpretation due to potential variations in patient populations or treatment protocols.
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.