Table 2.
Prognostic information and quality assessment of the included studies.
| Author | Year | Method | Outcome | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | Analysis | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| for OS | for PFS | ||||||
| Afzal et al. (15) | 2019 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.01 (0.40–2.00) | 0.30 (0.10–0.70) | M | 7 |
| Chalabi et al. (19) | 2020 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.45 (1.20–1.75) | 1.30 (1.10–1.53) | NA | 8 |
| Failing et al. (21) | 2016 | RE | OS/PFS | 0.44 (0.17–1.15) | 0.60 (0.34–1.06) | NA | 7 |
| Hakozaki et al. (22) | 2019 | RE | OS | 1.90 (0.80–4.51) | NA | M | 6 |
| Iglesias‐Santamaría (25) | 2019 | RE | OS/PFS | 0.79 (0.40–1.56) | 0.75 (0.42–1.34) | M | 7 |
| Svaton et al. (30) | 2020 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.22 (0.72–2.05) | 1.36 (0.89–2.06) | M | 8 |
| Zhao et al. (31) | 2019 | RE | OS/PFS | 0.68 (0.33–1.43) | 0.91 (0.54–1.54) | U | 8 |
| Hopkins et al. (23) | 2020 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.52 (1.27–1.83) | 1.38 (1.18–1.62) | M | 8 |
| Husain et al. (24) | 2021 | RE | OS | 1.99 (1.15–3.45) | NA | NA | 7 |
| Stokes et al. (29) | 2021 | RE | OS | 0.96 (0.89–1.04) | NA | M | 7 |
| Peng et al. (28) | 2021 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.20 (0.77–1.87) | 0.90 (0.64–1.28) | M | 8 |
| Jun et al. (26) | 2021 | RE | OS | 1.14 (0.84–1.54) | NA | U | 6 |
| Ruiz-Bañobre et al. (12) | 2021 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.83 (1.11–3.02) | 1.94 (1.22–3.09) | M | 8 |
| Araujo et al. (17) | 2021 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.73 (1.23–2.44) | 2.36 (1.67–3.34) | M | 8 |
| Miura et al. (27) | 2021 | RE | OS | 1.36 (0.96–1.91) | NA | M | 7 |
| Cortellini et al. (20) | 2020 | RE | OS/PFS | 1.26 (1.04–1.52) | 1.26 (1.07–1.48) | M | 8 |
| Buti et al. (18) | 2021 | RE | OS | 1.57 (1.13–2.18) | NA | U | 6 |
RE, retrospective; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; HR, hazard ratio, NA, not available; U, univariate; M, multivariate; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.