Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Kunath, Frank; Jensen, Katrin; Pinart, Mariona; Kahlmeyer, Andreas; Schmidt, Stefanie; Price, Carrie; Lieb, Verena; Dahm, Philipp

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003506.pub2

Cited by 16 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature searches in electronic databases were the same for each rapid review, but three different investigators independently screened the literature and scanned the reference lists for relevant studies. For each rapid review, we used the same key questions and eligibility criteria as the Cochrane reviews [16][17][18]. We randomly assigned the topic order to rapid reviewers to mitigate learning effects.…”

Section: General Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We decided to use Cochrane reviews as comparators because they adhere to rigorous systematic review methodological standards [19]. Two of these reviews addressed the pharmacological treatments of malignant diseases (nivolumab for Hodgkin's lymphoma [16] and early versus deferred androgen suppression for advanced prostate cancer [18]); the third review was on a public health policy topic (unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities [17]). We used ongoing reviews so that investigators conducting the rapid reviews were masked regarding the final inclusions of the Cochrane reviews.…”

Section: Reference Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each reviewer independently screened the retrieved abstracts and full texts. The reviewers applied the same inclusion and exclusion criteria as the respective Cochrane review teams [16][17][18]. We used the web-based software tool Covidence (www.covidence.org, Veritas Health Innovation) for the abstract and full-text screening.…”

Section: Literature Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Affengruber

Wagner

Waffenschmidt

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. Methods Using three cases studies, we evaluated a rapid review approach that consisted of a substantially abbreviated literature search and single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts. We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). ConclusionsWithin the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

show abstract

Section: General Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reference Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Affengruber

Wagner

Waffenschmidt

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We decided to use Cochrane reviews as comparators because they adhere to a rigorous systematic review of methodological standards [19]. Two of these reviews addressed the pharmacological treatments of malignant diseases (nivolumab for Hodgkin's lymphoma [16] and early versus deferred androgen suppression for advanced prostate cancer [18]); the third review was on a public health policy topic (unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities [17]). We used ongoing reviews so that investigators conducting the rapid reviews were masked regarding the final inclusions of the Cochrane reviews.…”

Section: Reference Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For case study 3, the reference list searches identified 3 to 4 studies that had been missed by the abbreviated electronic literature searches (see Table 3). In Table 2 Characteristics of the Cochrane reviews used as reference standards Case study 1: Nivolumab for adult individuals with Hodgkin's lymphoma [16] Case study 2: Early versus deferred androgen suppression for treating advanced prostate cancer [18] Case study 3: Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities [17] Search Studies included in meta-analyses 0 1 0 1 1…”

Section: Sensitivity To Identify Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Methods: We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the metaanalyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results: For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). Conclusions: Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

show abstract

How does early compare with deferred standard androgen suppression therapy (AST) for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer?

Mocellin¹

2019

Cochrane Clinical Answers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Abstract: Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Early vs deferred AST (subgroup analyses based on disease stage), Outcome 2 Serious adverse events based on disease stage..

Cited by 16 publications

References 134 publications

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

How does early compare with deferred standard androgen suppression therapy (AST) for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About