SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Comparative efficacy of glioma treatment strategies: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of diabetes on survival of patients with glioma: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Mathematical Modeling of the Role of Cytokines in Sindbis Virus Treatment of Glioblastoma.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- ITPKA suppresses glioma progression and predicts patient prognosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Evidence That Brain Cancers Could Be Effectively Treated with In-Home Radiofrequency Waves.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the quality of evidence, identify potential biases, and verify the validity of existing studies on glioma treatment outcomes.
methodsWe extracted and analyzed data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing therapies in glioma patients. Our search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database up to July 2024. Two authors independently evaluated each meta-analysis for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool, following established evidence classification guidelines.
resultsThis study evaluated 68 meta-analyses and 389 outcomes from 4,243 articles, classifying 193 outcomes as 'very low' quality, 96 as 'low' quality, 28 (7.2%) as 'high' quality, and 72 (18.5%) as 'moderate' quality, 156 as NS, 231 (59.4%) as Class IV, and 2 (0.005%) as Class III, respectively. High-quality evidence demonstrated that combining Traditional Chinese and Western medicine, adding bevacizumab (BVZ) to chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and other specific treatments improved overall survival (OS). Molecularly targeted drugs combined with temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT), as well as standard therapy augmented with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor or BVZ, prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). Additionally, treatments involving RT with TMZ or TMZ alone increased adverse events, whereas high-quality evidence showed that integrated Traditional Chinese and Western medicine, compared to Western medicine alone, reduced bone marrow suppression and gastrointestinal issues, enhancing treatment efficacy.
conclusionsHigh-quality evidence indicates that targeted therapy, immunotherapy, CRT, integrated Chinese and Western medicine, gene therapy, and combinations of targeted therapies with CRT or chemotherapy (CT) can extend OS and PFS in gliomas. However, CT, CRT, and targeted therapies, with or without additional CT or CRT, may increase adverse events. Integrated Chinese and Western medicine alone may reduce adverse effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.