Evidence Synthesis to Accelerate and Improve the Evaluation of Therapies for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer

Tierney, Jayne; Vale, Claire; Parelukar, Wendy; Rydzewska, Larysa; Halabi, Susan

doi:10.1016/j.euf.2019.01.005

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An obvious limitation of all included reviews is their use of aggregate data. An individual participant data NMA is currently being conducted within the STOPCAP M1 programme [56,57], and should allow many of the issues discussed here to be resolved. As the majority of data were from large-scale randomised controlled trials, we did not attempt to draw any conclusions about the possible effects of trial-level bias on review results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers. Results A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear. Conclusions and recommendations Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individual participant data (IPD) is generally seen as the "gold standard" [51], and would allow many of the issues discussed here to be resolved. No IPD review in this setting yet exists, but the STOPCAP M1 programme [52] aims to develop an IPD repository to allow this work to be done [53] and to allow other researchers to tackle new questions as they arise going forward.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

Fisher¹,

Burdett²,

Vale³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews. We carried out a systematic review to identify and examine duplicated Network Meta-Analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC).MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of systemic treatments in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers.ResultsA total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1,773 and 7,844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear.Conclusions and RecommendationsVariation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the unique aims or scope of the project. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation. Review authors should be fully knowledgeable of their subject, both in terms of relevant studies and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication; and should re-evaluate their knowledge throughout the research process, particularly in fast-moving fields.

show abstract

“…Prospectively designed topic-based repositories take this approach a step further by mapping out the trial landscape, before most have completed and reported, to address a series of questions (both known and as yet unknown) within a specific topic area. One such example is the STOPCAP M1 repository of trials conducted in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer [ 24 ]. Using a prospective approach allows researchers to anticipate upcoming, clinically relevant, and important questions as the treatment paradigm evolves, and direct engagement with investigators facilitates the conduct of prospective meta-analyses of aggregate data that can guide the strategic collection of IPD [ 25 ].…”

Section: The Current Clinical Data Sharing Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing individual participant data: through a systematic reviewer lens

Rydzewska

Stewart

Tierney

2022

Trials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing prevalence of data-sharing models, aimed at making individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials widely available, should facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on IPD. We have assessed these different data-sharing approaches, from the perspective of experienced IPD reviewers, to examine their utility for conducting systematic reviews based on IPD, and to highlight any challenges. We present an overview of the range of different models, including the traditional, single question approach, topic-based repositories, and the newer generic data platforms, and show that there are benefits and drawbacks to each. In particular, not all of the new models allow researchers to fully realise the well-documented advantages of using IPD for meta-analysis, and we offer potential solutions that can help improve both data quantity and utility. However, to achieve the “nirvana” of an ideal clinical data sharing environment, both for IPD meta-analysis and other secondary research purposes, we propose that data providers, data requestors, funders, and platforms need to adopt a more joined-up and standardised approach.

show abstract

Evidence Synthesis to Accelerate and Improve the Evaluation of Therapies for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

Sharing individual participant data: through a systematic reviewer lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About