scholarly journals Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e039314
Author(s):  
Kurinchi Gurusamy ◽  
Claire L Vale ◽  
Elena Pizzo ◽  
R Bhanot ◽  
Brian R Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant

IntroductionThere is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery.Primary objectivesTo compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.Secondary objectivesTo compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost–utility analysis.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost–utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting.Ethics and disseminationThis project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019130504.

scholarly journals Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy ◽  
Claire Vale ◽  
Elena Pizzo ◽  
R Bhanot ◽  
Brian Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant

Abstract Background There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared to standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery. Primary objectives To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian, or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Secondary objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis. Methods We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of how CRS+HIPEC and SoC were performed, how long people were followed-up, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications, and resource utilisation data by contacting the study authors and obtaining data at the individual participant level. Using individual participant data (IPD), we will perform a two-step IPD, i.e. calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses and metaregression to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity and identify whether a subset of participants benefits from CRS+HIPEC and perform sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results to assumptions. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting.

scholarly journals Tolerability of Duloxetine in the Elderly and in Young Adults: A Protocol and Preliminary Results of a Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Roy ◽  
Chloé Rousseau ◽  
Alexis Jutel ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
Gabriel Robert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Elderly Population ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Individual Participant

Abstract BackgroundDuloxetine is an antidepressant that benefits from a wide range of approval in the elderly population, while its safety for use in the elderly population, compared to younger adults, is not clearly assessed. This protocol outlines a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of duloxetine between elderly and younger adults. MethodsOnly randomised controlled clinical trials, comparing duloxetine to placebo, will be included in this meta-analysis. The studies will be selected if participants were adults of less and more than 65 years old, in conditions of use of duloxetine approved by the European Medical Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The primary outcome will be the rate ratio of serious adverse events under duloxetine compared to placebo, between participants at least 65 years old and younger adults. Second, the number of any adverse events, clinical efficacy and quality of life will be compared between elderly and younger adults under both interventions. The quality of evidence in the tolerability of duloxetine will be assessed using the GRADE system. A two-step random effect meta-analysis will be conducted. Preliminary searches and formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria on have been completed using predefined search term on electronic databases. DiscussionThis study represents the first meta-analysis investigating the safety of duloxetine in the elderly population across all conditions approved by European and American regulatory authorities. The results from this meta-analysis are intended to help prescribers to provide better care for the elderly population.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019130488).

scholarly journals Long working hours and alcohol use: systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data

BMJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 350 (jan12 13) ◽  
pp. g7772-g7772 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Virtanen ◽  
M. Jokela ◽  
S. T. Nyberg ◽  
I. E. H. Madsen ◽  
T. Lallukka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Long Working Hours ◽  
Individual Participant

Telestroke for acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review of economic evaluations and a de novo cost–utility analysis for a middle income country

2021 ◽  
pp. 1357633X2110324
Author(s):  
Elise Tan ◽  
Lan Gao ◽  
Huong NQ Tran ◽  
Dominique Cadilhac ◽  
Chris Bladin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Rural China ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Utility Analysis

Introduction Telemedicine can alleviate the problems faced in rural settings in providing access to specialist stroke care. The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of this model of care outside high-income countries is limited. This study aimed to conduct: (a) a systematic review of economic evaluations of telestroke and (b) a cost–utility analysis of telestroke, using China as a case study. Methods We systematically searched Embase, Medline Complete and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria: full economic evaluations of telemedicine/telestroke networks examining the use of thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, published in English. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken using a Markov model incorporating a decision tree to simulate the delivery of telestroke for acute ischaemic stroke in rural China, compared to no telestroke from a societal and healthcare perspective. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results. Results Of 559 publications found, eight met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review (two cost-effectiveness analyses and six cost–utility analyses, all performed in high-income countries). Telestroke was a cost-saving/cost-effective intervention in five out of the eight studies. In our modelled analysis for rural China, telestroke was the dominant strategy, with estimated cost savings of Chinese yuan 4,328 (US$627) and additional 0.0925 quality-adjusted life years per patient. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the base case results. Discussion Consistent with published economic evaluations of telestroke in other jurisdictions, telestroke represents a cost-effective solution to enhance stroke care in rural China.

scholarly journals Effects of mechanical interventions in the management of knee osteoarthritis: protocol for an OA Trial Bank systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043026
Author(s):  
Erin M Macri ◽  
Michael Callaghan ◽  
Marienke van Middelkoop ◽  
Miriam Hattle ◽  
Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Broad Class ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Mechanical Intervention

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Biomechanical factors may play a key role in the aetiology of knee OA, therefore, a broad class of interventions involves the application or wear of devices designed to mechanically support knees with OA. These include gait aids, bracing, taping, orthotics and footwear. The literature regarding efficacy of mechanical interventions has been conflicting or inconclusive, and this may be because certain subgroups with knee OA respond better to mechanical interventions. Our primary aim is to identify subgroups with knee OA who respond favourably to mechanical interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised clinical trials of any mechanical intervention for the treatment of knee OA. We will invite lead authors of eligible studies to share individual participant data (IPD). We will perform an IPD meta-analysis for each type of mechanical intervention to evaluate efficacy, with our main outcome being pain. Where IPD are not available, this will be achieved using aggregate data. We will then evaluate five potential treatment effect modifiers using a two-stage approach. If data permit, we will also evaluate whether biomechanics mediate the effects of mechanical interventions on pain in knee OA.Ethics and disseminationNo new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites serving the public and clinicians.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155466.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document