Non‐surgical vs surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes): Dysphagia
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes dysphagia at maximal compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Non‐surgical vs surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) Dysphagia at maximal · people with oesophageal cancer It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes dysphagia at maximal compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) (very low certainty). Non‐surgical versus surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.48 [1.01, 2.19] | 1 study · 139 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‐surgical versus surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer 2016 · 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.