Epidermal growth factor vs best supportive care: Survival rates at 3 years
Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in survival rates at 3 years compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Epidermal growth factor vs best supportive care Survival rates at 3 years · adults with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in survival rates at 3 years compared with best supportive care (low certainty). Therapeutic vaccines for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.45 [0.82, 2.54] | 2 studies · 458 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Therapeutic vaccines for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer 2024 · 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.