Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34086601›Full record

SynthesisAging2021

Sex-related differences in the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li-Ting Lai, Wei-Guo Gu, Ming-Bin Hu, Wei-Jia Wang, Shan-Shan Wang, Ya-Jun Huai, Jin-Hong Mei, Chun-Liang Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Li-Ting LaiDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Wei-Guo GuDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Ming-Bin HuDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Wei-Jia WangDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Shan-Shan WangDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Ya-Jun HuaiDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Jin-Hong MeiDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Chun-Liang WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although disease susceptibility is known to differ between men and women, it is controversial whether the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for malignancies also differs between the sexes. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore the impact of sex on immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to October 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors with hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex. We calculated the pooled HRs for men and women using the ln(HR), and assessed the heterogeneity between the two estimates through an interaction test. In total, 22,268 patients from 39 randomized controlled trials were included. Immune checkpoint inhibitors yielded better overall survival than conventional agents in both men (HR: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.80) and women (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.85). Progression-free survival benefits were also observed in both men (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.58-0.70) and women (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.77) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. No sex differences in the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors were found when overall survival and progression-free survival were used as the endpoints.

Indexed as

Sex CharacteristicsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMaleNeoplasmsProgression-Free SurvivalPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorscancerimmunotherapymeta-analysissex-specific differencestherapeutic efficacy

Identifiers

PMID34086601
PMCPMC8221333
OpenAlexW3165149874

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.