Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007406Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 08 octubre 2008see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Cáncer ginecológico, neurooncología y otros cánceres

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Larysa Rydzewska

    Correspondencia a: Meta‐analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK

    [email protected]

  • Jayne Tierney

    Meta‐analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK

  • Sarah Burdett

    Meta‐analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK

  • Paul RP Symonds

    Department of Oncology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK

Declarations of interest

No potential conflicts of interest

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2012 Dec 12

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

Review

Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, Claire L Vale, Paul R Symonds

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007406.pub3

2010 Jan 20

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

Review

Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, Claire L Vale, Paul R Symonds

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007406.pub2

2008 Oct 08

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

Protocol

Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, Sarah Burdett, Paul RP Symonds

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007406

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Table 1. Table 01 Risk of Bias Tool

Sequence generation.

Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Allocation concealment.

Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrolment.

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessorsAssessments should be made for each main outcome (or class of outcomes). 

Describe all measures used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.

Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?

Incomplete outcome dataAssessments should be made for each main outcome (or class of outcomes). 

Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomized participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re‐inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors.

Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

Selective outcome reporting.

State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors, and what was found.

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Other sources of bias.

State any important concerns about bias not addressed in the other domains in the tool.

If particular questions/entries were pre‐specified in the review’s protocol, responses should be provided for each question/entry.

Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias?

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Table 01 Risk of Bias Tool