Prognostic factors in mammary analogue secretory carcinomas of the parotid gland: Systematic review and m eta‐analysis

Head & Neck ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Janik ◽  
Muhammad Faisal ◽  
Blazen Marijić ◽  
Stefan Grasl ◽  
Matthaeus Ch. Grasl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Parotid Gland

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for chronic post-surgical pain after lung or pleural surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051554
Author(s):  
Pascal Richard David Clephas ◽  
Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks ◽  
Marialena Trivella ◽  
Christian S Guay ◽  
Preet Mohinder Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Surgical Pain ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Chronic Post Surgical Pain

IntroductionChronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after lung or pleural surgery is a common complication and associated with a decrease in quality of life, long-term use of pain medication and substantial economic costs. An abundant number of primary prognostic factor studies are published each year, but findings are often inconsistent, methods heterogeneous and the methodological quality questionable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed to summarise the evidence.Methods and analysisThe reporting of this protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include retrospective and prospective studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting patient-related factors and surgery-related factors for any adult population. Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report on prognostic factors for CPSP after lung or pleural surgery. We will exclude case series, case reports, literature reviews, studies that do not report results for lung or pleural surgery separately and studies that modified the treatment or prognostic factor based on pain during the observation period. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar and relevant literature reviews will be searched. Independent pairs of two reviewers will assess studies in two stages based on the PICOTS criteria. We will use the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool for the quality assessment and the CHARMS-PF checklist for the data extraction of the included studies. The analyses will all be conducted separately for each identified prognostic factor. We will analyse adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures separately. When possible, evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis and otherwise narratively. We will quantify heterogeneity by calculating the Q and I2 statistics. The heterogeneity will be further explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on clinical knowledge. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline 28.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be necessary, as all data are already in the public domain. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021227888.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojia Lu ◽  
Pengyang Li ◽  
Catherine Teng ◽  
Peng Cai ◽  
Ling Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy

scholarly journals Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo Marte ◽  
Andrea Tufo ◽  
Francesca Steccanella ◽  
Ester Marra ◽  
Piera Federico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.

Prognostic factors for relapse in resected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 102299
Author(s):  
Rachel Broadbent ◽  
Roseanna Wheatley ◽  
Sabrina Stajer ◽  
Timothy Jacobs ◽  
Angela Lamarca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽  
Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document