SynthesisJAMA network open2026
Reappraisal of Cisplatin vs Carboplatin Treatment for Solid Tumors: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Cisplatin and carboplatin are central pillars of chemotherapy in solid tumor oncology, but their comparative efficacy and tolerability remain variably defined in the literature across tumor types and settings. Objective: To quantify and grade the certainty of evidence comparing the efficacy and safety outcomes of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based systemic therapies through an umbrella review of published meta-analyses. Data Sources: Web of Science Core Collection databases from inception through January 11, 2026. Study Selection: Eligible studies were original meta-analyses of patients with solid tumors directly comparing both platinum-based regimens and reporting outcomes consisting of objective response rate, complete response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, disease-free survival, mortality or treatment failure ratio, and selected adverse events. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Effect sizes from individual studies were pooled and harmonized as equivalent odds ratios (eORs) through random-effects models. Certainty of evidence was classified with an algorithmic GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The umbrella meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were summarized as pooled eORs. Results: Eleven meta-analyses (including 52 unique studies and 12 683 unique patients) were included across 7 tumor types. High-certainty evidence supported a higher objective response rate with cisplatin vs carboplatin in advanced urothelial carcinoma (8 studies; eOR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.24-1.53]; P < .001) and no progression-free survival difference in advanced ovarian carcinoma (3 studies; eOR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81-1.03]; P = .09). Moderate-certainty evidence supported an increased complete response with cisplatin in early-stage cervical carcinoma (3 studies; eOR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.27-3.24]; P = .02), while 3-year disease-free survival and OS did not show significant differences. In advanced non-small cell lung cancer, 1-year OS (10 studies; eOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.89-1.27]) and mortality ratio (14 studies; eOR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.98-1.01]) did not show differences, with moderate GRADE class. Peripheral neurotoxicity did not differ significantly, with moderate-certainty evidence. Ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and emesis were significantly higher with cisplatin, while hematologic toxicity, particularly thrombocytopenia, was significantly higher with carboplatin; heterogeneity was high and certainty was very low. Conclusions and Relevance: In this umbrella meta-analysis comparing cisplatin- and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, the findings clarified the certainty of evidence regarding their comparative efficacy and safety. High-certainty findings were confined to urothelial and ovarian cancers. For most other tumor types, particularly for survival outcomes, estimates suggested no meaningful differences, with moderate to low certainty, highlighting important gaps in high-level evidence.
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.