RESUMO

PURPOSE: Anticancer drug use at the end of life places potential extra burdens on patients and the healthcare system. Previous articles show variability in methods and outcomes; thus, their results are not directly comparable. This scoping review describes the methods and extent of anticancer drug use at end of life. METHODS: Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were conducted to identify articles reporting anticancer drug use at the end of life. RESULTS: We selected 341 eligible publications, identifying key study features including timing of research, disease status, treatment schedule, treatment type, and treatment characteristics. Among the subset of 69 articles of all cancer types published within the last 5 years, we examined the frequency of anticancer drug use across various end of life periods. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive description of publications on anticancer drug use at end of life underscores the importance of methodological factors when designing studies and comparing outcomes.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study reports that may affect accuracy assessments. The report of these studies had some limitations, and the assessments of their accuracy may suffer from indirectness, considering that they were mostly developed before the release of the PRISMA 2009 statement or due to their limited scope in the selection of systematic review topics. Search filters for MEDLINE Three studies produced filters with sensitivity > 90% with variable degrees of precision, and only one of them was developed and validated in a gold-standard database, which allowed the calculation of specificity. The other two search filters had lower levels of sensitivity. One of these produced a filter with higher levels of specificity (> 90%). All filters showed similar sensitivity and precision in the external validation, except for one which was not externally validated and another one which was conceptually derived and only externally validated. Search filters for Embase We identified three studies that developed filters for this database. One of these studies developed filters with variable sensitivity and precision, including highly sensitive strategies (> 90%); however, it was not externally validated. The other study produced a filter with a lower sensitivity (72.7%) but high specificity (99.1%) with a similar performance in the external validation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies reporting the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE showed similar sensitivity and precision, with one filter showing higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited information about how the filter was produced, which leaves us uncertain about their performance assessments. Newer filters had limitations in their methods or scope, including very focused subject topics for their gold standards, limiting their applicability across other topics. Our findings highlight that consensus guidance on the conduct of search filters and standardized reporting of search filters are needed, as we found highly heterogeneous development methods, accuracy assessments and outcome selection. New strategies adaptable across interfaces could enhance their usability. Moreover, the performance of existing filters needs to be evaluated in light of the impact of reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA 2009, on how systematic reviews are reported. Finally, future filter developments should also consider comparing the filters against a common reference set to establish comparative performance and assess the quality of systematic reviews retrieved by strategies.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Desalination has been proposed as a global strategy for tackling freshwater shortage in the climate change era. However, there is a concern regarding the environmental effects of high salinity brines discharged from desalination plants on benthic communities. In this context, seagrasses such as the Mediterranean endemic and ecologically important Posidonia oceanica have shown high vulnerability to elevated salinities. Most ecotoxicological studies regarding desalination effects are based on salinity increments using artificial sea salts, although it has been postulated that certain additives within the industrial process of desalination may exacerbate a negative impact beyond just the increased salinities of the brine. To assess the potential effect of whole effluent brines on P. oceanica, mesocosm experiments were conducted within 10 days, simulating salinity increment with either artificial sea salts or brines from a desalination plant (at 43 psµ, 6 psµ over the natural 37 psµ). Morphometrical (growth and necrosis), photochemical (PSII chlorophyll a fluorometry), metabolic, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), thiobarbituric reactive substances (TBARS) and ascorbate/dehydroascorbate (ASC/DHA), and molecular (expression of key tolerance genes) responses were analyzed in each different treatment. Although with a still positive leaf growth, associated parameters decreased similarly for both artificial sea salt and brine treatments. Photochemical parameters did not show general patterns, although only P. oceanica under brines demonstrated greater energy release through heat (NPQ). Lipid peroxidation and upregulation of genes related to oxidative stress (GR, MnSOD, and FeSOD) or ion exclusion (SOS3 and AKT2/3) were similarly incremented on both hypersalinity treatments. Conversely, the ASC/DHA ratio was significantly lower, and the expression of SOS1, CAT, and STRK1 was increased under brine influence. This study revealed that although metabolic and photochemical differences occurred under both hypersalinity treatments, growth (the last sign of physiological detriment) was similarly compromised, suggesting that the potential effects of desalination are mainly caused by brine-associated salinities and are not particularly related to other industrial additives.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Numerous biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis, therapeutic, and prognosis in sepsis. Previous evaluations of the value of biomarkers for predicting mortality due to this life-threatening condition fail to address the complexity of this condition and the risk of bias associated with prognostic studies. We evaluate the predictive performance of four of these biomarkers in the prognosis of mortality through a methodologically sound evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine, in critically ill adults with sepsis, whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and presepsin (sCD14) are independent prognostic factors for mortality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2023. Only Phase-2 confirmatory prognostic factor studies among critically ill septic adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses pooled the prognostic association estimates. RESULTS: We included 60 studies (15,681 patients) with 99 biomarker assessments. Quality of the statistical analysis and reporting domains using the QUIPS tool showed high risk of bias in > 60% assessments. The biomarker measurement as a continuous variable in models adjusted by key covariates (age and severity score) for predicting mortality at 28-30 days showed a null or near to null association for basal PCT (pooled OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-1.003), CRP (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.17), and IL-6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03) and sCD14 (pooled HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000 to 1.006). Additional meta-analyses accounting for other prognostic covariates had similarly null findings. CONCLUSION: Baseline, isolated measurement of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and sCD14 has not been shown to help predict mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. The role of these biomarkers should be evaluated in new studies where the patient selection would be standardized and the measurement of biomarker results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019128790).

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection. METHODS: The more relevant databases were searched. Main outcomes were false-negative rate (FNR), sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. The pooled FNR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), the pooled SLNIR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), NPV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and summary accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). SLNB performed better when more than one node was removed and double mapping was used. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB can be performed in women with a node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy. It has a better performance when used with previous marking of the affected node and with double tracer.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review updated until July 2022. The outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), clinical response, event-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: We identified eleven randomized clinical trials (2836 patients). When comparing paclitaxel plus dual treatment versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab or lapatinib, dual treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.02-4.10). Addition of a taxane to an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, plus lapatinib or trastuzumab, showed that the dual treatment was better than lapatinib alone (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.41-4.34), or trastuzumab alone (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.13-3.16). Dual treatment may result in an increase in survival outcomes and tumour clinical response, although such benefits are not consistent for all the combinations studied. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual blockade with combinations of trastuzumab and pertuzumab can be recommended for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with HER2-positive breast cancer. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018110273.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX. RESULTS: 11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included three randomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183384.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo entregar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre los efectos de remdesivir en pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran el uso de remdesivir versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Se realizó una búsqueda en la plataforma L·OVE COVID-19 (Living OVerview of Evidence), un sistema que mantiene búsquedas regulares en bases de datos, registros de ensayos, servidores preprint y sitios web relevantes en COVID-19. Todas las búsquedas fueron realizadas hasta el 25 de agosto de 2020. No se aplicaron restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. Dos revisores evaluaron de forma independiente los artículos potencialmente elegibles, de acuerdo con criterios de selección predefinidos, y extrajeron los datos mediante un formulario estandarizado. Los resultados fueron combinados mediante un metanálisis utilizando modelos de efectos aleatorios y evaluamos la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el método GRADE. Una versión viva de esta revisión estará abiertamente disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19. RESULTADOS: La búsqueda inicial arrojó 574 referencias. Finalmente, identificamos 3 ensayos aleatorios, que evaluaban el uso de remdesivir adicionado al tratamiento estándar versus tratamiento estándar. La evidencia es muy incierta acerca del efecto del remdesivir sobre la mortalidad (RR 0,7; IC del 95%: 0,46 a 1,05; certeza de la evidencia muy baja) y la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva (RR 0,69; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,24; certeza de evidencia muy baja). Por otro lado, es probable que el uso de remdesivir produzca un aumento en la incidencia de efectos adversos en pacientes con COVID-19 (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 2,84; evidencia de certeza moderada). CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia disponible sobre el papel del remdesivir en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 es insuficiente en relación a los desenlaces críticos para tomar decisiones, por lo que no es posible realizar un correcto balance entre los beneficios potenciales, los efectos adversos y los costos.

OBJECTIVE: Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included three randomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs.

Assuntos