Question · asked by 1 review

Rapid COJEC vs standard induction therapies: Early toxicities (during preoperative chemotherapy): febrile neutropenia (2 or more episodes), proven fungal infections, septicemia (1 or more episodes), gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 3 or 4), renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/...

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Rapid COJEC vs standard induction therapies
Early toxicities (during preoperative chemotherapy): febrile neutropenia (2 or more episodes), proven fungal infections, septicemia (1 or more episodes), gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 3 or 4), renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/... · patients with high‐risk neuroblastoma
Rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapies for high‐risk neuroblastoma (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted1 study · 248 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapies for high‐risk neuroblastoma
2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot 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.