Epidermal growth factor vs best supportive care
Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in survival rates at 3 years compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
- RR 1.45 [0.82, 2.54]2 studies · 458 participantsLow
Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in survival rates at 3 years compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
Epidermal growth factor may leads to higher survival rates at 5 years compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether epidermal growth factor changes health‐related quality of life compared with best supportive care (very low certainty).
Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Epidermal growth factor showed no clear difference in participants with at least one serious adverse event compared with best supportive care (low certainty).
Erlotinib showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with control (high certainty).
Erlotinib leads to lower progression‐free survival compared with control (high certainty).
Gefitinib showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with paclitaxel + carboplatin (high certainty).
Gefitinib leads to lower progression‐free survival compared with paclitaxel + carboplatin (high certainty).
Gefitinib showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with pemetrexed + carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance (moderate certainty).
Gefitinib probably leads to lower progression‐free survival compared with pemetrexed + carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance (moderate certainty).
Afatinib showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with chemotherapy (high certainty).
Afatinib leads to lower progression‐free survival compared with chemotherapy (high certainty).