Four cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage N2-3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Four cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage N2-3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Item: Four cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage N2-3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Xie WH, Xiao WW, Chang H, Xu MJ, Hu YH, Zhou TC, Zhong Q, Chen CY, Lu LX, Wang QX, Zhu YJ, Yang J, Shi XY, Kang HL, Wei JW, Huang R, Peng HH, Yuan Y, Wu SH, Jiang XH, Liu YJ, Wen BX, Gao YH

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Four cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage N2-3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported phase 3 randomised controlled trial with a clear scientific premise, rigorous design, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement and lack of code sharing, which limits reproducibility.

Both reviewers agreed on all dimensions and study type (interventional). The statistics verification component recomputed 4 reported tests consistently, but coverage is limited to tests with test statistics/CI; other tests were not machine-verified. The citation check found no retracted or missing references. The integrity check raised only low-severity observations about toxicity percentages and CONSORT flow, which are not validity threats.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites multiple prior studies (Hui et al., Jin et al., and the authors' own 924-case analysis) and explains the rationale for using four cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by noting the lack of consensus on neoadjuvant regimens and the need for a phase 3 trial. The hypothesis follows logically from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work cited and a logical rationale linking the hypothesis to the study objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Hui and colleagues did a phase 2 trial comparing two cycles of docetaxel plus cisplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cisplatin based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in 2009 and showed a favourable impact on overall survival.”