No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.MethodsA systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient’s values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires’ construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient’s preferences and values.ResultsA total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding “validity”, seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash’s α values of 0.74–0.87. For “acceptability”, the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient’s preferences and values showed that the “effectiveness” domain was the most considered item in the patient’s value questionnaire followed by “safety”, “prognosis”, and others, whereas the least considered domain was “physician’s experience”.ConclusionOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient’s preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient’s preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient’s preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient’s preferences and values.

IntroductionA modified and recombinant human endostatin (Rh-endostatin) is often used in the control of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) through intrapleural infusion.ObjectivesTo demonstrate the clinical response, survival, and safety of Rh-endostatin plus chemical irritants, their optimal combinations, treatment threshold, and optimal usage, we performed a new systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodologyAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected from Chinese and English electronic databases (from inception until August 2020). We pooled the data using a series of meta-analyses and summarized the evidence quality following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsWe included 75 RCTs recruiting 4,678 patients, which reported six combinations for Rh-endostatin plus chemical irritants. Among the six combinations, only Rh-endostatin plus cisplatin (DDP) with enough trials might improve the complete response [2.29 (1.93, 2.71)] and quality of life [3.01 (2.49, 3.63)] and reduce treatment failure [0.29 (0.25, 0.33)] and progressive disease [0.27 (0.22, 0.34)]. It might not increase the risk of adverse drug reactions. For patients with lung cancer, moderate to massive effusion, initial treatment, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score ≥60, or anticipated survival time ≥3 months, Rh-endostatin (30–45 mg each time, once or twice a week 3–4 times) plus DDP (30–60 mg/m2) obtained a significant improvement in clinical response and a reduction of failure and progressive disease. Most results had good robustness and moderate quality.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that Rh-endostatin with DDP may be an optimal combination, which may improve clinical response and reduce failure and progressive disease with good safety. Rh-endostatin (30–40 mg each time, once or twice a week 3–4 times) with DDP (30–40 mg/m2) may be an optimal usage for achieving an ideal response.

ObjectiveOur network meta-analysis aimed to determine the assistant efficacy of targeted therapy in combined with chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 2,410 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Eight targeted agents involving 11 treatment arms were included. The methodological quality of included RCTs was acceptable. The results of direct comparisons showed that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer with bevacizumab+chemotherapy when compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.62, 95% credible intervals [CrI]: 0.41–0.87). However, there were no statistically significant differences for all other direct comparison groups. The results of indirect comparison of different targeted agents revealed no significant differences regarding all outcomes of interest. According to ranking probabilities, all outcomes favored bevacizumab+chemotherapy and veliparib+chemotherapy. Bayesian and Frequentist network meta-analysis showed similar results, and the probability of bias of small-study effects was small.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (via ISI Web of Knowledge), BIOSIS Previews (via ISI Web of Knowledge), and Chemical Abstracts (CA) was conducted to identify RCTs involving targeted agents in the treatment of advanced/metastatic TNBC. Two reviewers independently extracted related data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using R-3.3.2 software.ConclusionsLimited evidence showed that targeted agents combined with chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic TNBC were slightly effective. Further investigation of targeted therapies for TNBC is required to improve patient outcomes. The registration number was CRD42014014299.