Pazopanib vs sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent): Progression‐free survival
Pazopanib showed no clear difference in progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on… compared with sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pazopanib vs sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 12 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Pazopanib showed no clear difference in progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on… compared with sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) (low certainty). Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | HR 1.05 [0.9, 1.23] | 1 study · 1110 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.