Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Referencias

Additional references

Benedet 1998

Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Severi G, Creasman WT, Shepherd J, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Journal of Epidemiology and Biostatistics 1998;6(1):5‐34. [PUBMED: 11385777]

Devesa 1995

Devesa SS, Blot WJ, Stone BJ, Miller BA, Tarone RE, Fraumeni JF. Recent cancer trends in the United States. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1995;87(3):175‐82. [PUBMED: 7707404]

Friedlander 1983

Friedlander M, Kaye SB, Sullivan A, Atkinson K, Elliott P, Coppleson M, et al. Cervical carcinoma: a drug‐responsive tumor‐‐experience with combined cisplatin, vinblastine, and bleomycin therapy. Gynecologic Oncology 1983;16(2):275‐81. [PUBMED: 6195052]

Higgins 2008

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008 Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Landoni 1997

Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib‐IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 1997;350(9077):535‐40. [PUBMED: 9284774]

Manriquez 2008

Manriquez JJ. A highly sensitive search strategy for clinical trials in Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS) was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(4):407‐11.

NACCCMA 2003

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Meta‐analysis Collaboration (NACCCMA). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of individual patient data from 21 randomised trials. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 2003;39(17):2470‐86. [PUBMED: 14602133]

NCI 1999

National Cancer Institute. NCI Issues Clinical Announcement on Cervical Cancer:  Chemotherapy plus Radiation Improves Survival [Web Page]. 1999. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/cervicalcancer.

Parkin 2005

Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2005;55(2):74‐108. [PUBMED: 15761078]

Parmar 1998

Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;24:2815‐34.

Sardi 1990

Sardi J, Sananes C, Giaroli A, Maya G, di Paola G. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Gynecologic Oncology 1990;38(3):486‐93. [PUBMED: 1699851]

Sasieni 1995

Sasieni P, Cuzick J, Farmery E. Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales. Lancet1995; Vol. 346, issue 8989:1566‐7. [PUBMED: 7491080]

Thigpen 1981

Thigpen T, Shingleton H, Homesley H, Lagasse L, Blessing J. Cis‐platinum in treatment of advanced or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer 1981;48(4):899‐903. [PUBMED: 7196794]

Tierney 2007

Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007;8(1):16.

WHO 2006

World Health Organisation. Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Control: a guide to essential practice. Integrating Health Care for Sexual Reproductive Health and Chronic Diseases2006; Vol. http://www.who.int/reproductive‐health/publications/cervical_cancer_gep/index.htm.

Williamson 2002

Williamson PR, Tudur Smith C, Hutton JL, Marson AG. Aggregate data meta‐analysis with time‐to‐event outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:3337‐51.

Witteveen 2002

Witteveen PO, Verhaar MJ, Jurgenliemk‐Schulz IM, van Eijkeren MA. Update on the treatment of advanced cervical cancer. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 2002;43(3):245‐56. [PUBMED: 12270781]
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