No abstract

Note to reader: it is acknowledged that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator. The searches were carried out in 2010/11. Published November 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hta21690This report should be referenced as follows:Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, Boachie C, Duffy S, Fraser C, et al. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 2017;21(69). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme or, commissioned/managed through the Methodology research programme (MRP), and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions. To strengthen the evidence base for health research, the MRP oversees and implements the evolving strategy for high-quality methodological research. In addition to the MRC and NIHR funding partners, the MRP takes into account the needs of other stakeholders including the devolved administrations, industry R&D, and regulatory/advisory agencies and other public bodies. The MRP funds investigator-led and needsled research proposals from across the UK. In addition to the standard MRC and RCUK terms and conditions, projects commissioned/managed by the MRP are expected to provide a detailed report on the research findings and may publ...

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy was undertaken to evaluate and compare the tolerability of sargramostim (yeast-derived recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, RhuGM-CSF) and filgrastim (bacteria-derived recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, RhuG-CSF) in the prophylaxis or treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In all, 137 evaluable patients received sargramostim (300 micrograms; 193 mg/m2) or filgrastim (481 mg; 7 mg/kg) once daily by self-administered s.c. injection, usually beginning within 48 h after completion of chemotherapy. With the exception of a slightly higher incidence of grade 1 fever (< 38.1 degrees C) with sargramostim, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence or severity of local or systemic adverse events possibly related to the growth factors. Although the study was not designed to evaluate efficacy directly, there also were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in total days of growth factor therapy, days of hospitalization, or days of i.v. antibiotic therapy during the treatment period. Both sargramostim and filgrastim were comparably well tolerated when given by s.c. injection in this group of patients, and no clinically significant differences between the growth factors were demonstrated.

No abstract

ConclusionTreatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.