Study	Reason for exclusion
Benson 2003	Lack of control
Bolis 2001a	Lack of control
Bolis 2001b	Lack of control
Chiara 2004	Lack of control
Creemers 1996	Lack of control
Donato 2001	Lack of control
Feng 2001	Lack of control
Gordon 2001	This was the original study of Gordon 2004. Data was combined with the latter.
Gordon 2004b	Lack of control
Gore 2001b	Lack of control
Gore 2002	Topotecan was used in two groups aim to compare two ways of administration (intravenous versus oral).
Greggi 2001	Lack of control
Gronlund 2005	Lack of control
Guppy 2004	Lack of control
Gwyther 1997	Lack of control
Hanjani 2002	Lack of control
Hochster 1999	Lack of control
Hochster 2006	Lack of control
Hoskins 1998	This was a Phase II study aim to compare two ways of administration of topotecan: intravenously versus infusion.
Hoskins 2000	Lack of control
Huinink 1997	This was the original study of Huinink 2004, data was combined in the latter.
Kudelka 1996	Lack of control
Lehoczky 2002	Non‐randomized study
Levy 2004	Lack of control
Li 2002	Lack of control
Markman 1999	Lack of control
Markman 2000 a	Lack of control
Markman 2000b	Lack of control
Markman 2004	Lack of control
Matulonis 2003	Lack of control
McGuire 2000	Lack of control
Miller 2003	Lack of control
Nielsen 2000	Lack of control
Penson 2001	Lack of control
Piura 2005	Lack of control
Puls 2002	non‐randomised study
Rose 2000	Lack of control
Rose 2005	Lack of control
Sehouli 2002	Lack of control
Sehouli 2008	Topotecan was used to both two groups, aim to compare two ways of administration of topotecan (weekly administration versus conventional administration).
Sehouli 2011	Topotecan was used to both two groups, aim to compare two ways of administration of topotecan (weekly versus conventional 5‐day schedule).
Sood 2004	Lack of control
Stathopoulos 2004	Lack of control
Tiersten 2006	Lack of control
van Warmerdam 1996	Lack of control
Verhaa 2006	Lack of control