Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Long‐term side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013047Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 June 2018see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Protocol
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Theresa A Lawrie

    Correspondence to: Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancer Group, 1st Floor Education Centre, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK

    [email protected]

  • Jonathan Evans

    School of Psychological Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

  • David Gillespie

    Department of Neuropsychology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

  • Sara Erridge

    Edinburgh Cancer Centre, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK

  • Luke Vale

    Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

  • Ashleigh Kernohan

    Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

  • Robin Grant

    Edinburgh Centre for Neuro‐Oncology (ECNO), Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

Contributions of authors

Theresa Lawrie wrote the first draft of the protocol. All authors advised on and approved the final version of the protocol.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • NIHR 16/144 Cochrane Programme Grants Scheme, UK.

Declarations of interest

Theresa Lawrie: none known
Jonathan Evans: none known
David Gillespie: none known
Sara Erridge: none known
Luke Vale: Member of NIHR HTA CET Panel until March 2018
Ashleigh Kernohan: none known
Robin Grant: none known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Information Specialist, Jo Platt, and the Gynaecological, Neuro‐Oncology and Orphan Cancer Group (GNOC) Managing Editors, Gail Quinn and Clare Jess for their advice and support in the preparation of this protocol. In addition, we would like to thank the library staff at the Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK for sourcing many of the articles cited.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Programme Grant funding to Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancers. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, National Health Service (NHS) or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2019 Aug 05

Long‐term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma

Review

Theresa A Lawrie, David Gillespie, Therese Dowswell, Jonathan Evans, Sara Erridge, Luke Vale, Ashleigh Kernohan, Robin Grant

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013047.pub2

2018 Jun 12

Long‐term side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma

Protocol

Theresa A Lawrie, Jonathan Evans, David Gillespie, Sara Erridge, Luke Vale, Ashleigh Kernohan, Robin Grant

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013047

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Table 1. Summary of findings

Radiotherapy compared with no radiotherapy for glioma: long‐term side effects

Patient or population: people with glioma surviving at last two years

Settings: tertiary care

Intervention: radiotherapy

Comparison: no radiotherapy

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No radiotherapy

Radiotherapy

Cognitive impairment at ≥ 2 years

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

QoL score at ≥ 2 years

The mean [outcome] ranged across control groups from
[value][measure]

The mean [outcome] in the intervention groups was
[value] [lower/higher]
[(value to value lower/higher)]

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Functional impairment at ≥ 2 years

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Endocrine dysfunction at ≥ 2 years

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Depression at ≥ 2 years

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Fatigue at ≥ 2 years

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

[Delete as
appropriate]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; [other abbreviations, e.g. OR, etc.]

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Summary of findings