studies

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

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsNCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 0.70 [0.58; 0.85] RADIANT, 2015 1.13 [0.88; 1.45] TOPICAL, 2012 0.92 [0.79; 1.08] 0.89[0.69; 1.14]NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, RADIANT, 2015, TOPICAL, 2012379%2,374moderatenot evaluable progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsNCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 0.61 [0.51; 0.73] TOPICAL, 2012 0.80 [0.68; 0.94] 0.70[0.54; 0.92]NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, TOPICAL, 2012279%1,401lownot evaluable events or deaths (EFS)detailed resultsRADIANT, 2015 0.90 [0.74; 1.10] 0.90[0.74; 1.10]RADIANT, 201510%973NAnot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsNCIC CTG BR.21, 2005 10.18 [2.43; 42.54] TOPICAL, 2012 2.00 [0.81; 4.98] 4.09[0.84; 19.91]NCIC CTG BR.21, 2005, TOPICAL, 2012272%1,401lownot evaluable0.510.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-07-01 17:14 +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: 430