studies

lung cancer : non small cell (NSCLC), ... vs. ..., meta-analysis of study results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 0.94 [0.68; 1.30] 0.94[0.68; 1.30]H3E-CR-S131, 201610%236NAnot evaluable progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 0.85 [0.63; 1.14] 0.85[0.63; 1.14]H3E-CR-S131, 201610%236NAnot evaluable DORdetailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 0.84 [0.53; 1.33] 0.84[0.53; 1.33]H3E-CR-S131, 201610%105NAnot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsH3E-CR-S131, 2016 0.79 [0.47; 1.32] 0.79[0.47; 1.32]H3E-CR-S131, 201610%236NAnot evaluable0.52.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-06-29 16:39 +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: 161,226,41,225,182,198,179,200,195,254,242,243,199,190,229,266,191,196,36,228,174,171,173,307,165,163,176,308,164,166,220,197,255,37,245,204,244,241,227,217,177,279,167,1,170,261,280,168,169,335,334 - treatments: 1067