A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Doxorubicin-eluting bead versus conventional TACE for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background/aims: Doxorubicin-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) has recently been developed as a novel therapy option for HCC. However, the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE is still unclear. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE (cTACE).

Methodology: We inlcuded seven studies (a total of 693 patients) to compare DEB-TACE with cTACE. The pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random or fixed effects model. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published from dates of inceptions up to February 20, 2012. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias estimate were also performed to evaluate the potential risk bias in the overall results of pooled analysis.

Results: The pooled estimates for tumor response of DEB-TACE were not significantly different from those of cTACE, with CR (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.81-1.71; p=0.394), PR (OR: 1.37; 95%CI: 0.94-1.99; p=0.101), SD (OR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.51-1.51; p=0.637), PD (OR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.52-1.38; p=0.512), DC (OR: 1.37, 95%CI: 0.95-1.98; p=0.089) and OR (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 0.97-2.000; p=0.070).

Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that DEB-TACE is able to accomplish the same tumor response as cTACE. Although this analysis provides a comprehensive look at published data involving the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE, additional large scale of randomized-control studies are still needed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5754/hge121025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conventional tace
12
efficacy deb-tace
12
doxorubicin-eluting bead
8
clinical efficacy
8
deb-tace compared
8
compared conventional
8
deb-tace ctace
8
tumor response
8
137 95%ci
8
deb-tace
7

Similar Publications