Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.

Name: Adcurare Rigor Record — Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.
Item: Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Adcurare

You R, Xu GQ, Ding X, Liang JH, Liu ZG, Zou X, Liu YP, Hu GY, Liu YM, Duan CY, Liu LZ, Zhang WJ, Liu Q, Li HF, Ouyang YF, Duan XT, Wang Q, Peng L, Liang JL, Feng ZK, Qin ZH, Liu X, He ZK, Zhang B, Long GX, Jiang YH, Lei F, Huang PY, Hua YJ, Chen MY

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)Journal

Embed this Rigor badge

Adcurare Rigor Review — 4.5★ (Strong), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Adcurare Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Adcurare Editorial · July 7, 2026

Adcurare Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.5 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

ClaimsUnsupported claim (uncorroborated)−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced1 type

Conclusions not supported by the paper’s own evidence

This Adcurare 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 phase 3 trial is methodologically strong: it uses a randomised design with centralised allocation, a pre-specified power analysis, masked central imaging review, and thorough statistical reporting. Data and code are publicly shared. The main weakness is the open-label design without a stated rationale and the lack of specification of the random number generation method, both of which are minor but notable reporting gaps. One claim in the Discussion about OS translation is unsupported and should be tempered.

All three independent reviewers evaluated the full manuscript text. Their ratings were synthesised with careful attention to divergences, particularly in the study design dimension where Reviewer 2's stricter reading of the randomisation and blinding sub-criteria led to a 'warn' instead of 'pass'. The statistics verification component checked 6 re-computations (all consistent), but this covers only a subset of the reported tests (those with a test statistic + df or an effect + CI). The citation check found no retracted or unlocatable references. The claim audit flagged one unsupported claim. Copyedit identified 6 minor issues, mainly typos.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

Recomputed 6 tests: 6 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 6 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior phase 3 trials showing PD-1 inhibitor benefit in recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, discusses the CONTINUUM study, and explains the rationale for targeting high-risk patients defined by poor response to induction chemotherapy or advanced stage. Limitations of prior work (e.g., heterogeneity of risk stratification) are acknowledged and addressed by the study design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well established through citation of prior work on PD-1 inhibitors in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and the rationale for the study population.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“several phase 3 trials have shown that adding programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors to chemotherapy as first line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma provided statistically significantly and clinically meaningful benefits”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“the CONTINUUM study confirmed our hypothesis that the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor sintilimab to chemoradiotherapy improved progression-free survival with manageable adverse events”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“patients with similar pretreatment staging may have different survival outcomes despite receiving the same treatment”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well-established, with thorough citation of prior work, a clear rationale linking the premise to the study objectives, and acknowledgment of limitations addressed by the study design.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 3-6]

“Recently, the CONTINUUM study confirmed our hypothesis that the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor sintilimab to chemoradiotherapy improved progression-free survival with manageable adverse events.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Therefore, patients with stage 2-3 disease without radiological or biological response after induction chemotherapy or with stage T4 or N3 disease regardless of the response status after induction chemotherapy can potentially be considered to be at high risk.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Previous risk stratification tools largely focused on pretreatment factors such as staging based on imaging before treatment. However, considerable heterogeneity remains for most cancer subtypes—patients with similar pretreatment staging may have different survival outcomes despite receiving the same treatment.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well established through comprehensive citation of prior work on nasopharyngeal carcinoma, induction chemotherapy response, and PD-1 inhibitors, with a clear rationale for the study hypothesis.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 3-5]

“Paraphrase: The authors discuss that retrospective studies show tumour response after induction chemotherapy is a strong prognostic indicator, but note that current risk stratification tools largely focus on baseline staging and overlook this dynamic factor.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“the addition of PD-1 inhibitors to the chemoradiotherapy regimen after induction chemotherapy may be a promising treatment strategy for this high risk population. Recently, the CONTINUUM study confirmed our hypothesis that the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor sintilimab to chemoradiotherapy improved progression-free survival with manageable adverse events.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

Randomisation was centralised with stratification by centre and disease stage, and a block structure unknown to clinical staff. An a priori power analysis with 80% power and two-sided alpha=0.05 is reported, yielding a required sample of 388 patients. Interim analyses were monitored by an independent data monitoring committee using O'Brien-Fleming spending function. Blinding is described as open-label but masking of the central imaging review committee is reported, with rationale. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly listed. The primary analysis is intention-to-treat. Outlier handling is not explicitly named but the analysis approach (ITT, per-protocol sensitivity) follows standard trial practice.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous with adequate elements for a phase 3 trial: centralised randomisation, stratification, sample size calculation with power analysis, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and independent central imaging review.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“The centralised randomisation procedure was conducted in the current study. Only the study coordinator and statistician knew the block structure, and they had no involvement in clinical aspects of the trial.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“The power was 0.80 (1−β) and the two sided type I error (α) was 0.05. Based on a presumed 10% dropout rate, a total of 388 participants were estimated to be required”

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“the treatment group assignment was known to the investigators and patients (open label), but this was masked to the central imaging review committee members”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study design has strong elements (randomization, power analysis, inclusion/exclusion criteria) but the open-label design without full blinding justification and lack of independent replication are noted weaknesses, though appropriate for a phase 3 oncology trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“The centralised randomisation procedure was conducted in the current study.”

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“The treatment group assignment was known to the investigators and patients (open label), but this was masked to the central imaging review committee members”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Based on a presumed 10% dropout rate, a total of 388 participants were estimated to be required (194 participants in each group), allowing for 98 events in the primary analysis of progression-free survival.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study design is robust: a multicentre randomised trial with centralised randomisation, stratification, a sample size calculation, defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a pre-specified analysis population.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“the treatment group assignment was known to the investigators and patients (open label), but this was masked to the central imaging review committee members (W-JZ, L-ZL), who reviewed the imaging results of patients without access to information about treatment.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“The sample size was calculated using the log rank test. The expected length of the accrual period and maximal length of follow-up were three and six years, respectively. The power was 0.80 (1−β) and the two sided type I error (α) was 0.05. Based on a presumed 10% dropout rate, a total of 388 participants were estimated to be required (194 participants in each group), allowing for 98 events in the primary analysis of progression-free survival.”

Sex is reported (27.4% female). Age and BMI are reported as medians with IQR. Tumour stage (T, N, overall) is detailed. Histology and EBV DNA copy number are provided. Response to induction chemotherapy (radiological and biological) is reported. As this is a human trial, species/strain, housing conditions, and sex justification (both sexes enrolled) are not applicable. Health status is captured via Karnofsky performance status.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Biological variables are adequately reported: sex, age, weight (BMI), tumour stage, histology, EBV DNA levels, and response after induction chemotherapy are all presented in Table 1.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Sex: Female 57 (29.4) [camrelizumab], 50 (25.5) [standard]; Age (years), median (IQR): 46.0 (36.8-54.0)”

direct quote[Table 1]

“EBV DNA copy number at diagnosis, median (IQR): 1237.0 (249.3-6730.0) [camrelizumab], 1130.0 (178.8-7375.0) [standard]”

direct quote[Results, Patients and treatment]

“In the standard treatment group, 54 patients had stage 2-3 disease, all of whom showed no radiological or biological response to induction chemotherapy”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables for this human clinical trial are well reported, including sex, age (as a proxy for age/weight/health), and detailed demographics. Sex is reported but the study enrolled both sexes, so justification is not required. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human study.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Female 57 (29.4) ... Male 137 (70.6)”

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Age (years), median (IQR) 46.0 (36.8-54.0) ... Karnofsky performance status score 90-100 192 (99.0)”

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Body mass index, median (IQR) 21.7 (19.6-24.6) ... Smoking (current or former) Yes 56 (28.9)”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Biological variables are well reported: sex, age, and demographic/clinical characteristics are reported in detail for this human trial. Single-sex justification is not applicable as both sexes were enrolled. Species/strain/housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Female 57 (29.4) [camrelizumab group], 50 (25.5) [standard treatment group]”

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Age (years), median (IQR) 46.0 (36.8-54.0) [camrelizumab group], 45.0 (35.0-54.0) [standard treatment group]”

The paper states that the study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (B2020-131-01) and the ethics committees of each participating centre. Informed consent is described as the responsibility of investigators, indicating written informed consent was obtained. Regulatory compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and CONSORT is stated. This meets all applicable criteria for a human interventional trial.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals and consent are adequately reported with named IRB, protocol number, informed consent mention, and Declaration of Helsinki compliance.

Evidence

direct quote[Ethics statements]

“The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (B2020-131-01) and respective ethics committee of each participating centre. The trial conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki”

direct quote[Methods, Participants]

“Eligibility assessment and obtaining written informed consent from eligible patients was the responsibility of investigators at each centre.”

direct quote[Abstract]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04453826”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported: the study was approved by a named IRB with a protocol number, informed consent was obtained, and compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki is stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Ethics statements]

“The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (B2020-131-01) and respective ethics committee of each participating centre.”

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“Eligibility assessment and obtaining written informed consent from eligible patients was the responsibility of investigators at each centre.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“The trial conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki and the reporting of results was based on the CONSORT statement.”

PASSReviewer 3· 98% conf

Ethical approvals are clearly reported: a named IRB approved the study with a protocol number, written informed consent was obtained, and compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki is stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (B2020-131-01) and respective ethics committee of each participating centre.”

direct quote[Methods, Participants]

“Eligibility assessment and obtaining written informed consent from eligible patients was the responsibility of investigators at each centre.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“The trial conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki”

Camrelizumab is identified by name, dose (200 mg), schedule (every three weeks for 19 cycles), and route (IV). Cisplatin and gemcitabine are named with dose and schedule. Radiotherapy specifications are referenced to supplementary appendix. Software used: SPSS version 25.0 and R version 4.4.1. Antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma, and organisms are not applicable as this is a human drug trial with no wet-lab component.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The investigational product (camrelizumab) is identified with dose, schedule, and manufacturer context is implied via the institutions; concurrent chemotherapeutic agents (cisplatin, gemcitabine) are named with dose and schedule. Software tools are identified. No wet-lab reagents were used.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Procedures]

“Patients in the camrelizumab group received 200 mg camrelizumab intravenously over a minimum duration of 60 minutes on the initial day of radiotherapy, once every three weeks for two cycles during intensity modulated radiotherapy.”

direct quote[Methods, Procedures]

“intravenous cisplatin (80 mg/m² on day 1) and gemcitabine (1 g/m² on days 1 and 8 of each 21 day cycle)”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.4.1.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key resources are adequately identified for a drug trial: the investigational product (camrelizumab) is named with manufacturer, dose, and regimen. The software tools used are also identified. Antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma testing, and organisms are not applicable for this clinical trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Procedures]

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.4.1.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Key resources are adequately identified: the investigational drug (camrelizumab) is named, the chemotherapeutic agents and radiotherapy are described, and statistical software is reported. Antibodies, cell lines, and organisms are not applicable for this clinical trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Procedures]

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.4.1.”

The primary analysis uses stratified log-rank test and Cox PH model with hazard ratios and 95% CIs. Proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residuals. Exact p-values are reported for the primary endpoint (P=0.001) and secondary endpoints. Effect sizes (HR) with confidence intervals are provided. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves (Figure 2) and event counts per group. The statistical analysis plan includes interim analysis with O'Brien-Fleming spending function. Per-group n is clearly stated. GRIM check: the overall percentage of women (27.4%) × 390 = 106.86, rounding to 107 women, matching the text's 107; similarly, 283 men. The numbers are plausible.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Statistical analysis is comprehensive: tests are named (log-rank, Cox PH), assumptions verified (Schoenfeld residuals), exact p-values reported (e.g., 0.001, 0.19), effect sizes with 95% CIs, software identified, and data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and per-group n. No arithmetic errors are apparent from the reported numbers.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract / Results]

“stratified hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.77, P=0.001”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“the proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residuals”

direct quote[Table 2]

“Events: 36 (18.6) [camrelizumab], 64 (32.7) [standard treatment]”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical analysis is well reported: all tests are named (stratified log-rank, Cox model with Schoenfeld residuals, mixed effects model), exact p-values are given (e.g., P=0.001), and effect sizes with 95% CIs are presented. Software is identified and data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and per-group n. Mathematical plausibility checks confirm no obvious errors.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Time-to-event data were visualised using Kaplan-Meier curves, and compared using the stratified log rank test. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model... while the proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residuals.”

direct quote[Abstract]

“stratified hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.77, P=0.001”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Statistical analysis is rigorous: tests are named (stratified log-rank, Cox proportional hazards, mixed effects model), exact p-values are reported for the primary endpoint, effect sizes with 95% CIs are provided, software is identified, and data presentation includes KM curves and per-group n. Assumptions are verified (proportional hazards tested).

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“the proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residuals.”

direct quote[Abstract, Results]

“stratified hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.77, P=0.001”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.4.1.”

A data availability statement is present, stating that data are openly and publicly available in Dryad with a DOI (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51zg). Code is mentioned as available in supplemental files. These meet the criteria for adequate repository deposit and code sharing. No accession numbers for sequencing data are applicable as this trial did not generate such data.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data are available in Dryad with a DOI, and code is provided in supplementary files, making this a strong open-science share for a clinical trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available in Dryad and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51zg”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplemental files.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data and code availability are adequately reported: a data availability statement names a public repository with DOI, and the analytical code is shared in supplemental files.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available in Dryad and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51zg”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplemental files.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Data and code availability are well reported: a data availability statement names a public repository (Dryad with DOI) for the data, and code is mentioned as available in supplemental files. This is adequate for a clinical trial where patient-level data are shared via a public repository.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available in Dryad and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51zg”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplemental files.”

The trial is registered (NCT04453826), and CONSORT guidelines are referenced. Methods are detailed enough for replication (dosing, schedules, assessments). All pre-specified outcomes are reported (primary, secondary, exploratory). Limitations are explicitly discussed (generalisability, open-label, multiplicity of exploratory analyses). Conclusions are proportional: the benefit on progression-free survival is noted while acknowledging that overall survival benefit requires longer follow-up. Funding sources and conflicts-of-interest statements are complete.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Reporting transparency is high: trial registration, CONSORT reporting, detailed methods, funding and COI statements, limitations discussed, and conclusions proportional to the evidence.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“the reporting of results was based on the CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement.”

direct quote[Discussion, Limitations of this study]

“this was an open label trial, which may have introduced biases that could be excluded in a double blind placebo controlled design”

direct quote[Funding / Competing interests sections]

“Funding was provided by Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project (2025ZD0544200)... funders had no role in considering the study design”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent: the trial is registered, a CONSORT checklist is referenced, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed. Methods are detailed enough for replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Methods, Study design]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04453826”

direct quote[Discussion, Limitations of this study]

“Additionally, this was an open label trial, which may have introduced biases that could be excluded in a double blind placebo controlled design.”

direct quote[Conclusions]

“determining whether the 12% increase in progression-free survival at 36 months will translate into an overall survival benefit will require longer follow-up.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Reporting transparency is high: methods are detailed for replication, the trial is registered (NCT04453826), CONSORT is referenced, all primary and secondary outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Trial registration]

“ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04453826”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“The reporting of results was based on the CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement.”

direct quote[Discussion, Limitations of this study]

“Patients were enrolled from a region where nasopharyngeal carcinoma is predominantly linked to EBV infection, therefore the generalisability of our findings to other populations needs further validation. Additionally, this was an open label trial, which may have introduced biases that could be excluded in a double blind placebo controlled design.”

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, clarity, consistency.

Checked 39 references: 38 verified — 1 not checked.

Reproducibility

3 data/code links checked; 3 live.

Registered (2 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Adcurare Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

Ready after minor edits. The two most important pre-submission fixes are (1) add the missing randomisation method detail and a brief rationale for the open-label design in the Methods, and (2) temper or remove the unsupported claim about overall survival translation in the Discussion. The copyedit issues (typos, minor clarity) should also be corrected. Once these items are addressed, the manuscript is ready for submission.

1.
HIGHreporting
In the Discussion, remove or explicitly qualify the claim that the 12% increase in PFS 'will translate into an overall survival benefit' — the data do not yet support this, and the conclusion already states longer follow-up is needed.
Claim audit flagged this as unsupported; a headline claim not backed by the study's own data would be an immediate reviewer objection.
2.
HIGHrigor
In Methods (Randomisation and masking), specify the algorithm used for random sequence generation (e.g., computer-generated random numbers with a stated seed or centralised system).
One reviewer noted this as 'reported_but_inadequate'; journal reviewers expect transparency in randomisation methods to assess risk of selection bias.
3.
HIGHrigor
In Methods (Randomisation and masking) or Discussion, add a brief scientific rationale for why a double-blind design was not used (e.g., impracticality of sham infusions, ethical considerations, or resource constraints).
The open-label design is acknowledged as a limitation, but the lack of justification for not blinding is a standard reviewer concern in a drug trial.
4.
HIGHrigor
In Methods (Procedures), explicitly name the manufacturer/source of camrelizumab (e.g., Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Lianyungang, China).
Transparency about drug sourcing is expected in clinical trial reporting; one reviewer flagged this as a minor gap.
5.
HIGHdata code
In the Data availability statement, provide a persistent identifier (e.g., GitHub release DOI or Zenodo DOI) for the analysis code instead of only indicating it is in supplemental files.
Supplemental files are not version-controlled and may not be preserved; a permanent identifier improves reproducibility and is increasingly expected by journals.
6.
MEDIUMrigor
In Methods (Statistical analysis), add a sentence describing how outliers in continuous outcomes (e.g., quality-of-life scores, lab values) were handled, or explicitly state that no outliers were excluded from any analysis.
Two reviewers flagged outlier handling as not explicitly reported; a brief statement pre-empts reviewer questions about data integrity.
7.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the typo 'CONTINNUMM' to 'CONTINUUM' in all three occurrences in the Discussion.
Copyedit flagged this as an incorrect study name; it should be consistent with the introduction.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Table 3, add a space before the parenthesis in the incidence value '124(66.7)' for the Vomiting row (camrelizumab group) to match format throughout the table.
Consistency in table formatting avoids minor copyedit complaints during review.
9.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion paragraph on cherry hemangioma, clarify that the cited incidences (21.7–57.9% grade 1–2, 0% grade 3) are from other studies, not the current trial.
The current wording could be misread as reporting the study's own data, which a reviewer may flag as a clarity issue.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion paragraph comparing to the capecitabine trial (Chen et al.), rephrase the sentence about 'valid control' to make the logical contrast clearer.
The copyedit noted the connection is unclear; a small rephrase will improve readability.

Full text (59,357 chars)Analyzed: Jul 7, 2026

Read alongside

Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Journal

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-085863

Share this Rigor Review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://adcurare.com/verify/2ac9b39d-5575-4c73-a12f-af9ed558fd97" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://adcurare.com/verify/2ac9b39d-5575-4c73-a12f-af9ed558fd97/badge" alt="Adcurare Rigor Review — 4.5★ (Strong), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Standard chemoradiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant camrelizumab in patients with high risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma: multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Rigor Record.

Record fingerprint

b51a8cde49ed75846eb82f2bac246e02a1fa0a3d229527e5ae2e70a460dfdb09

Verify via API

Issued Jul 7, 2026Engine 7.6.0

Adcurare assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we evaluate →