Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy: Progression‐free survival
It is very uncertain whether extended‐field chemoradiotherapy changes progression‐free survival compared with pelvic chemoradiotherapy (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy Progression‐free survival It is very uncertain whether extended‐field chemoradiotherapy changes progression‐free survival compared with pelvic chemoradiotherapy (very low certainty). Extended‐field radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | HR 0.25 [0.07, 0.87] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extended‐field radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer 2018 · 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.