SynthesisScientific reports2026
Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiochemotherapy after surgery of salivary gland cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific 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
There is a lack of prospective clinical trials on the therapy of salivary gland cancer (SGC) due the rarity and large variety of histological subtypes. This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) after primary surgery of SGC followed by postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) versus radiochemotherapy (PORCT) in curative intent. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies reporting OS after the two postoperative therapy modalities using hazard ratios (HRs) or allowing to calculate the HRs from the data. These studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2024. Pooled HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) is reported with random-effects or fixed-effects models. The search yielded 1,074 publications, of which 11 retrospective clinical studies with 26,612 adult patients could be included. None of the studies found a statistically significant difference between PORT and PORCT. Likewise, this meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between PORT and PORCT. The pooled HR based on a common effect model was 1.065 (CI: 0.998-1.137) with low between study heterogeneity (I²=24.1%) and heterogeneity variance τ
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.