ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery vs. radical surgery alone in locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. 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
Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) poses a significant therapeutic challenge, particularly in defining the optimal role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by radical surgery (RS) relative to surgery alone. Existing literature offers conflicting evidence on survival benefits, highlighting the need for further clarification. In the present study, the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were systematically searched for studies comparing NACT plus RS vs. RS alone in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer. Eligible trials reported at least one major outcome [overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS)]. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses, assessment of publication bias and quality evaluations were performed. Seven studies encompassing 2,231 patients were included. The pooled estimate for DFS did not differ significantly between groups (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.62-1.56; P=0.941), despite some individual studies showing improvements. Subgroup meta-analysis of OS found a significant advantage favoring NACT plus RS (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.87; P=0.012). However, when all OS data were combined, the observed benefit approached but did not achieve statistical significance (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04; P=0.078). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings for OS and the consistent null effect for DFS. Publication bias assessments were largely negative, indicating minimal risk of missing or selectively reported studies. The NACT group had lower postoperative complications and radiotherapy needs but higher hematological toxicity and surgical complexity. In conclusion, NACT followed by RS may confer a borderline or subgroup-specific survival advantage over RS alone for LACC. However, the overall benefit remains inconclusive for DFS. Clinicians should balance potential gains against treatment-associated risks when considering NACT in routine practice.
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.