ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Nab-paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for taxane acute pain syndrome in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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.
- Acute hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel polymeric micelles during malignant tumor treatment: a retrospective real-world study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
Objective: To quantitatively compare the incidence and symptom-specific risk of taxane-associated acute pain syndrome (TAPS) between nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) and paclitaxel (PTX) in adults with solid tumors, with pre-specified stratification by dosing frequency. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library (to November 30, 2023) for randomised trials comparing nab-PTX versus PTX. After excluding docetaxel and other taxanes, nine head-to-head RCTs (3,699 patients) were pooled using random-effects models. Odds ratios (OR) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for arthralgia and myalgia, with subgroup analyses by q3w, q4w and weekly schedules. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and publication bias by funnel plots and Egger's test. Results: Myalgia incidence was significantly higher with nab-PTX (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06--1.48; I² = 0%), whereas arthralgia did not differ (OR 1.07, 0.91-1.25; I² = 0%). The excess myalgia was confined to the every-4-week (q4w, days 1,8,15) schedule (OR 1.32, 1.09-1.59; interaction p = 0.010), with no signal in q3w or weekly regimens. Up to one-quarter of q4w nab-PTX recipients experienced moderate-to-severe myalgia. Results were robust across sensitivity analyses and showed no publication bias. Conclusions: Nab-PTX selectively increases acute myalgia risk by 25% versus PTX, exclusively within the q4w schedule, without affecting arthralgia. Dosing frequency, not cumulative dose, drives this symptom-specific toxicity. Clinicians should consider schedule selection and proactive analgesia when prescribing nab-PTX. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023484814.
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.