Cancer symptom clusters in adult patients undergoing chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Abstract

Background In oncology, the prevalence of symptoms is preferentially analyzed in isolation instead of being considered in clusters. However, clinical practice shows that symptoms rarely occur separately but rather form clusters that share common underlying mechanisms in terms of intensity and severity, creating a synergistic effect among them, which can even help predict the development of future symptoms. Objective To identify and gather evidence on the prevalence, composition, severity, and predictors of cancer symptom clusters in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was developed in compliance with PRISMA-P. Observational and experimental study designs will be included. MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, clinical trials.gov-NIH, the British Library, Google Scholar, and preprints [medRXiv] will be searched with no restrictions on idioms, dates, or settings. Two investigators will independently select the studies, perform data extraction, and critically appraise the risk of bias of the included studies. Heterogeneity among the studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic. If meta-analysis was feasible, a random-effect model analysis will be carried out. For data analysis, the pooled effect will be estimated considering 95% confidence interval and α = 5%. In addition, the certainty of evidence will be rated based on Cochrane methods in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis will be the first to identify and critically assess evidence regarding the prevalence, composition, severity, and predictors of cancer symptom clusters in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. We intend to provide health professionals with subsidies to reflect on a better understanding of symptom clusters in adult cancer patients, with the aim of contributing to the development of evidence-based therapeutic interventions and success in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021248406.

Health Policies for Rare Disease Patients: A Scoping Review

“…The sample was blindly selected and updated by two independent reviewers. After this selection, a third reviewer analyzed and decided in conjunction with the other two reviewers on the inclusion or exclusion of each article, especially the conflicting ones, using the Rayyan™ App [ 23 ].…”

“…Pre-established tools were used for data extraction [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], which included four domains: (a) study identification with article title, country of authors, year of publication, host institution, conflict of interests, and funding; (b) methodological characteristics, including study design, objective or research question or hypotheses, sample characteristics (sample size and age, baseline characteristics of experimental and control groups), recruitment method, losses, follow-up duration, and statistical analysis; (c) main findings and implications for clinical practice; and (d) conclusions [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. The selected studies were then classified by evidence hierarchy [ 26 ].…”

Effect of omega-3 supplementation on the nutritional status of patients with pancreatic cancer: A protocol for systematic review of clinical trials

“…If disagreement will persist, a third reviewer will make the final decision. The information to be extracted [32] is detailed in Table 3.…”

“…The data extraction form was elaborated based on previous publications. [27,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Item Data to be extracted…”

“…First, the screening of the studies will be based on the information contained in their titles and abstracts and will be performed by the same two researchers (LCLJ and LBCP) using previously published data extraction forms. [27,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] If the reviewers disagree, the article will be evaluated. If disagreement will persist, a third reviewer will make the final decision.…”