studies

non squamous cell - mNSCLC - L1, ... vs. all, meta-analysis of study results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV) 1.06 [0.77; 1.48] 1.06[0.77; 1.48]H3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV)10%236NAnot evaluable progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV) 1.18 [0.88; 1.58] 1.18[0.88; 1.58]H3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV)10%236NAnot evaluable DORdetailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV) 1.19 [0.75; 1.88] 1.19[0.75; 1.88]H3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV)10%105NAnot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV) 1.27 [0.76; 2.13] 1.27[0.76; 2.13]H3E-CR-S131, 2016 (REV)10%236NAnot evaluable0.52.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-07-06 10:07 +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: 307,165,163,176 - treatments: 428

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