Gemcitabine vs Normal saline: Time to recurrence
Gemcitabine showed no clear difference in time to recurrence (absolute effect size estimates based on… compared with saline (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemcitabine vs saline Time to recurrence (absolute effect size estimates based on recurrence rate at 4 years) · participants with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (607 men, 127 women)Country: Germany, Turkey, and the US Gemcitabine showed no clear difference in time to recurrence (absolute effect size estimates based on… compared with saline (low certainty). Intravesical gemcitabine for non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | HR 0.77 [0.54, 1.09] | 2 studies · 734 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intravesical gemcitabine for non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer 2021 · 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.