Zed effect model on HR of OS. The pooled HR of

Zed effect model on HR of OS. The pooled HR of OS is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.grequested from the investigators. If the same trial appeared on different publications, the final data of the trial were chosen. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated scale (range, 0 to 5) applied to items that influence the intervention efficacy. It was reported by Jadad et al [9] that the scale consisted of items pertinent to randomization, masking, dropouts, and withdrawals. The following information was extracted from each published trial: year of publication, first author, number of patients, performance status, chemotherapy regimen, overall response rate (ORR), OS, PFS, toxicity, follow-up period etc. For response assessment, we used trials that included patients with measurable or assessable diseases, and that were analyzed mainly with RECIST criteria. Toxicity profiles were reported according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0 or 2.0). All meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0 (RevMan 5.0; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Stata statistical software (release 11.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Outcomes were compared using HR and RR. Respective 95 confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each estimate and presented in forest plots. The effect of the treatment for each single study was expressed as a ratio of the anti-EGFR chemotherapy arm over the chemotherapy alone arm. The heterogeneity of the study results was assessed by the chisquare and I-square test, determining the use of either fixed-effects or random-effects model. Heterogeneity was defined as either a Pvalue,0.1 or I-square.50 . When considerable heterogeneity was 1531364 detected, a possible explanation for it was pursued. When a reasonable cause was found, a separate analysis was performed. Publication bias was evaluated with the Begg’s test [10].Results Trial FlowThe flow chart of our study is demonstrated in Figure 1. Both reviewers finally agreed to include 4 trials [11?6] involving 1270 mCRC patients with KRAS wild type gene in the meta-analysis.Characteristics of the Selected TrialsThese prospective RCTs are summarized in Table 1. All selected trials for inclusion strictly according to prior 115103-85-0 chemical information selection criteria, were prospective, randomized, and the clinical characteristics were matched for performance status, age, stage and gender. All Sermorelin web studies reviewed were considered high quality, for each trial achieved a score of 3 (each point for randomization, withdrawal and appropriate method of randomization) in the assessment scale of Jadad’s study design [9]. Patients eligible for these studies had histologically or cytologically proven mCRC, with the same baseline data and without evidence of selection bias. All of the 4 trials are well organized, rigorous and prospective randomized controlled trials. The OS, PFS, ORR and toxicity data of KRAS wild type patients were extracted from 4 trials. The OPUS study [11,12], the only one phase II RCT in this meta-analysis, set the ORR as the primary endpoint. Unlike other 3 studies, the analysis of KRAS mutation status in this trial is retrospective. Patients were randomly assigned to the oxaliplatinbased chemotherapy, the same chemotherapy adding anti-EGFR MAbs and the intermittent chemotherapy i.Zed effect model on HR of OS. The pooled HR of OS is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.grequested from the investigators. If the same trial appeared on different publications, the final data of the trial were chosen. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated scale (range, 0 to 5) applied to items that influence the intervention efficacy. It was reported by Jadad et al [9] that the scale consisted of items pertinent to randomization, masking, dropouts, and withdrawals. The following information was extracted from each published trial: year of publication, first author, number of patients, performance status, chemotherapy regimen, overall response rate (ORR), OS, PFS, toxicity, follow-up period etc. For response assessment, we used trials that included patients with measurable or assessable diseases, and that were analyzed mainly with RECIST criteria. Toxicity profiles were reported according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0 or 2.0). All meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0 (RevMan 5.0; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Stata statistical software (release 11.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Outcomes were compared using HR and RR. Respective 95 confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each estimate and presented in forest plots. The effect of the treatment for each single study was expressed as a ratio of the anti-EGFR chemotherapy arm over the chemotherapy alone arm. The heterogeneity of the study results was assessed by the chisquare and I-square test, determining the use of either fixed-effects or random-effects model. Heterogeneity was defined as either a Pvalue,0.1 or I-square.50 . When considerable heterogeneity was 1531364 detected, a possible explanation for it was pursued. When a reasonable cause was found, a separate analysis was performed. Publication bias was evaluated with the Begg’s test [10].Results Trial FlowThe flow chart of our study is demonstrated in Figure 1. Both reviewers finally agreed to include 4 trials [11?6] involving 1270 mCRC patients with KRAS wild type gene in the meta-analysis.Characteristics of the Selected TrialsThese prospective RCTs are summarized in Table 1. All selected trials for inclusion strictly according to prior selection criteria, were prospective, randomized, and the clinical characteristics were matched for performance status, age, stage and gender. All studies reviewed were considered high quality, for each trial achieved a score of 3 (each point for randomization, withdrawal and appropriate method of randomization) in the assessment scale of Jadad’s study design [9]. Patients eligible for these studies had histologically or cytologically proven mCRC, with the same baseline data and without evidence of selection bias. All of the 4 trials are well organized, rigorous and prospective randomized controlled trials. The OS, PFS, ORR and toxicity data of KRAS wild type patients were extracted from 4 trials. The OPUS study [11,12], the only one phase II RCT in this meta-analysis, set the ORR as the primary endpoint. Unlike other 3 studies, the analysis of KRAS mutation status in this trial is retrospective. Patients were randomly assigned to the oxaliplatinbased chemotherapy, the same chemotherapy adding anti-EGFR MAbs and the intermittent chemotherapy i.