Network metanalysis and cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer.

Aguiar, Pedro Nazareth; Tan, Pui San; Simko, Sarah; Barreto, Carmélia Maria Noia; Aguiar, Barbara Gutierres; Giglio, Auro del; Lopes, Gilberto

doi:10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.6615

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified 19 eligible articles, published between August 2017 and December 2019, describing thirteen individual reviews. Ten reviews [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] were reported within peer-reviewed journals, of which five had previously also appeared in the form of one or more conference abstracts [27][28][29][30][31][32]. Three further reviews [33][34][35] were described in conference proceedings only.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

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: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identi ed nineteen eligible articles, published between August 2017 and December 2019, describing thirteen individual reviews. Ten reviews [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] appeared as peer-reviewed articles, of which ve also appeared in the form of one or more conference abstracts [26][27][28][29][30][31]; a further three reviews [32][33][34] were described in conference proceedings only. A ow diagram is shown in Additional le 2, and eligible reviews are summarised in Additional le 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, the scienti c contribution of such reviews is debatable, and may cause confusion if later more studied work suggests a con icting interpretation. By contrast, conference abstracts allow preliminary results to be presented for immediate discussion within the research community; three of the six reviews disseminated in this way [26][27][28] (and two others published later [20,24,29,30]) were ultimately published as fully peerreviewed articles [21][22][23]. Also of note, albeit not within the scope of this "meta-review", are narrative reviews -of which several also appeared at this time [9][10][11] -which aim simply to summarise a fastmoving eld and give clinicians a brief, clear description of the current body of evidence, without attempting statistical inference.…”

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

Network metanalysis and cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer.

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About