Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
Abstract
Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Improving sleep quality leads to better mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study
- A new aging measure captures morbidity and mortality risk across diverse subpopulations from NHANES IV: A cohort study
- Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study
- Are noise and air pollution related to the incidence of dementia? A cohort study in London, England
- Long COVID symptoms and duration in SARS-CoV-2 positive children — a nationwide cohort study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.