Bisphosphonates for advanced prostate cancer

Kwok Keung Yuen; Mike Shelley; Wai Man Sze; Timothy J. Wilt; Malcolm Mason

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006250

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Respuestas clínicas Cochrane
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Pain response, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients with pain response (intention‐to‐treat analysis).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Pain response, Outcome 2 Proportion of patients with pain response (evaluable patients as defined by original studies).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Pain response, Outcome 3 Mean pain change.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Analgesic consumption, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients with decreased analgesic consumption.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 2 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients as defined by original studies).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 3 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients, selecting 8/4mg arm from Saad 2002).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 4 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients, selecting 4mg arm from Saad 2002).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

$Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 5 Proportion of patients having pathologic fractures.$

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 5 Proportion of patients having pathologic fractures.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

$Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 6 Proportion of patients having vertebral fractures.$

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 6 Proportion of patients having vertebral fractures.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

$Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 7 Proportion of patients having non‐vertebral fractures.$

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 7 Proportion of patients having non‐vertebral fractures.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 8 Proportion of patients having spinal cord compression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 9 Proportion of patients received bone radiotherapy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Skeletal events, Outcome 10 Proportion of patients received bone surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Treatment response, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients died of prostate cancer.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Treatment response, Outcome 2 Proportion of patients with disease progression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Treatment response, Outcome 3 Proportion of patients with radiological response.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Performance status, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients with improvement in performance status.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Adverse events, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients having nausea.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Adverse events, Outcome 2 Proportion of patients having vomiting.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Adverse events, Outcome 3 Proportion of patients having anaemia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Adverse events, Outcome 4 Proportion of patients having bone pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. Pain response

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients with pain response (intention‐to‐treat analysis) Show forest plot	4	416	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.54 [0.97, 2.44]

2 Proportion of patients with pain response (evaluable patients as defined by original studies) Show forest plot	4	374	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.64 [1.02, 2.61]

3 Mean pain change Show forest plot	2	723	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.58 [‐1.75, ‐1.41]

Comparison 1. Pain response

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Analgesic consumption

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients with decreased analgesic consumption Show forest plot	4	416	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.27 [0.82, 1.98]

Comparison 2. Analgesic consumption

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Skeletal events

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events Show forest plot	3	1332	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.62, 1.00]

2 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients as defined by original studies) Show forest plot	3	1304	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.62, 1.00]

3 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients, selecting 8/4mg arm from Saad 2002) Show forest plot	3	1090	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.65, 1.08]

4 Proportion of patients having any skeletal events (evaluable patients, selecting 4mg arm from Saad 2002) Show forest plot	3	1083	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.59, 0.98]

5 Proportion of patients having pathologic fractures Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.53, 1.06]

6 Proportion of patients having vertebral fractures Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.38, 1.13]

7 Proportion of patients having non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.49, 1.12]

8 Proportion of patients having spinal cord compression Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.44, 1.55]

9 Proportion of patients received bone radiotherapy Show forest plot	3	1248	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.62, 1.11]

10 Proportion of patients received bone surgery Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.38, 1.70]

Comparison 3. Skeletal events

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Treatment response

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients died of prostate cancer Show forest plot	4	991	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.61, 1.11]

2 Proportion of patients with disease progression Show forest plot	2	538	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.53, 1.08]

3 Proportion of patients with radiological response Show forest plot	2	700	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.26 [0.87, 1.83]

Comparison 4. Treatment response

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Performance status

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients with improvement in performance status Show forest plot	2	368	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.53 [0.81, 2.91]

Comparison 5. Performance status

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Adverse events

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients having nausea Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.35 [1.02, 1.77]

2 Proportion of patients having vomiting Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.89, 1.69]

3 Proportion of patients having anaemia Show forest plot	3	1037	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.04 [0.76, 1.41]

4 Proportion of patients having bone pain Show forest plot	2	1021	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.72, 1.21]

Comparison 6. Adverse events

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet