Compare clinical efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: Meta-analysis

Table 1 General characteristics of included studies

Ref.	Country	Study type	Cases	Sample size		Inclusion in research quality evaluation
				TNT	nCRT
Garcia-Aguilar et al[9], 2015	America	Prospective study	259	199	60	6
Zhai et al[11], 2020	China	Retrospective study	134	79	55	6
Cercek et al[12], 2018	America	Retrospective study	628	308	320	8
Markovina et al[13], 2017	America	Prospective study	138	69	69	6
Zhu et al[14], 2019	America	Retrospective study	1079	372	707	8
Fernandez-Martos et al[15], 2015	America	Randomized controlled study	103	54	49	7
Maréchal et al[18], 2012	Belgium	Randomized controlled study	57	28	29	8
Calvo et al[19], 2014	Spain	Retrospective study	335	207	128	7
Bhatti et al[20], 2015	Pakistan	Retrospective study	154	93	61	7
Bujko et al[21], 2016	Poland	Randomized controlled study	515	261	254	8
Kim et al[22], 2018	South Korea	Randomized controlled study	110	54	56	7
Liang et al[23], 2019	China	Prospective study	156	76	80	5
Moore et al[24], 2017	Australia	Randomized controlled study	49	25	24	8
Wu et al[25], 2022	China	Randomized controlled study	80	40	40	8

TNT: Total neoadjuvant therapy; nCRT: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.