studies

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

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deaths (OS)detailed resultsIMPRESS, 2015 1.62 [1.05; 2.51] 1.62[1.05; 2.51]IMPRESS, 201510%265NAnot evaluable progression or deaths (PFS)detailed resultsIMPRESS, 2015 0.86 [0.65; 1.13] 0.86[0.65; 1.13]IMPRESS, 201510%265NAnot evaluable objective responses (ORR)detailed resultsIMPRESS, 2015 0.92 [0.55; 1.54] 0.92[0.55; 1.54]IMPRESS, 201510%265NAnot evaluable0.55.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-10-03 07:15 +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: 965