studies

breast cancer - HR positive, abemaciclib based treatment vs. all, meta-analysis of study results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsMONARCH 2, 2020 0.76 [0.61; 0.95] 0.76[0.61; 0.95]MONARCH 2, 202010%669NAnot evaluable progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsMONARCH 2, 2020 0.55 [0.45; 0.68] MONARCH 3, 2017 0.54 [0.41; 0.72] 0.55[0.46; 0.65]MONARCH 2, 2020, MONARCH 3, 201720%1,162lownot evaluable CBRdetailed resultsMONARCH 2, 2020 2.04 [1.45; 2.85] MONARCH 3, 2017 1.42 [0.92; 2.17] 1.74[1.22; 2.48]MONARCH 2, 2020, MONARCH 3, 2017242%1,162lownot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsMONARCH 2, 2020 2.82 [1.88; 4.24] MONARCH 3, 2017 1.76 [1.20; 2.59] 2.22[1.40; 3.52]MONARCH 2, 2020, MONARCH 3, 2017263%1,162lownot evaluable0.25.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-05-12 04:10 +02:00

TE: relative treatment effect (measured by a risk ratio, an odds ratio or an hazard ratio depending on what is reported in the papers); k: number of studies; n: total number of patients; ROB: risk of bias (ROB 2.0); Pub. bias: publication bias; OBS: observational studies; RCT: randomized clinical trials
studied treatment is better when TE > 1; studied treatment is better when TE < 1;

pathologies: 4,319,144,356,351,357,352,354,353,358,359 - treatments: 716,1404,967,1443,1406,1338,1337

- About us - Contact us - Method - RSS Made with in Lyon - Credits - Privacy policy - Licence Creative Commons