Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones para la micosis fungoide

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 12 septiembre 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Piel

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 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

  • Tobias Weberschock

    Correspondencia a: Evidence‐Based Medicine Frankfurt, Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

    Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology, J.W. Goethe‐University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany

  • Reinhard Strametz

    Evidence‐Based Medicine Frankfurt, Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

    Wiesbaden Business School, Hochschule RheinMain University of Applied Science, Wiesbaden, Germany

  • Maria Lorenz

    Institute and Outpatient Clinics of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

  • Christoph Röllig

    Medical Department I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany

  • Charles Bunch

    c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

  • Andrea Bauer

    Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany

  • Jochen Schmitt

    Center for Evidence‐Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Contributions of authors

TW was the contact person with the editorial base.
TW and RS co‐ordinated contributions from the co‐authors.
TW wrote the final draft of the review. TW, RS, ML, and JS revised it.
TW, ML, RS, and JS screened papers against eligibility criteria.
TW and RS obtained data on ongoing and unpublished studies.
TW, RS, ML, and JS appraised the quality of papers.
TW, ML, and RS extracted data for the review and sought additional information about papers.
RS and ML entered data into RevMan.
TW analysed and interpreted data.
TW wrote the draft of the methods sections, and TW, RS, ML, AB, and JS revised it.
TW drafted the clinical sections of the background. TW, CR, AB, JS, and ML revised the clinical sections of the background and responded to the clinical comments of the referees.
TW, RS, and JS responded to the methodology and statistics comments of the referees.
CB was the consumer co‐author and checked the review for readability and clarity, as well as ensuring outcomes are relevant to consumers.
TW is the guarantor of the update.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Evidence‐based Medicine Working Group, Institute for General Practice, Goethe‐University Frankfurt, Germany.

External sources

  • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FKZ: 01KG1011), Germany.

Declarations of interest

Tobias Weberschock offers standard courses in evidence‐based medicine for all that are interested, including pharmaceutical companies.

Sean Whittaker, external peer referee of this review, was the Chief Investigator of a Pivotal study of romidepsin, which led to the licensing of a drug (JCO 2010). He also received research funding in 2007 to 2008 from Gloucester Pharmaceuticals. He has worked in an advisory capacity for Merck in 2009 and Novartis in 2010, and he is currently working in an advisory role for Roche.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr. Finola Delamere, Elizabeth Doney, and Laura Prescott for their continuous and patient help in the whole process and Philipp Rehberger for the help in the planning phase.

The Cochrane Skin Group editorial base wishes to thank Michael Bigby who was the Key Editor for this review; Matthew Grainge and Philippa Middleton who were the Statistical and Methods Editors, respectively; Rubeta Matin and Sean Whittaker who were the clinical referees; and the consumer referee, Ann Fonfa.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2020 Jul 07

Interventions for mycosis fungoides

Review

Arash Valipour, Manuel Jäger, Peggy Wu, Jochen Schmitt, Charles Bunch, Tobias Weberschock

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub3

2012 Sep 12

Interventions for mycosis fungoides

Review

Tobias Weberschock, Reinhard Strametz, Maria Lorenz, Christoph Röllig, Charles Bunch, Andrea Bauer, Jochen Schmitt

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub2

2011 Jan 19

Interventions for mycosis fungoides

Protocol

Tobias Weberschock, Philipp Rehberger, Christoph Röllig, Charles Bunch, Jochen Schmitt, Andrea Bauer

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008946

Differences between protocol and review

Since this review required more work than anticipated, we added two colleagues (RS and ML) who provided substantive intellectual contributions justifying an authorship according the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org/ last accessed on 04.02.2011).

We added an assessment of external validity as suggested by an external peer review board of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Since the Cochrane Skin Group Ongoing Skin Trials Register (www.nottingham.ac.uk/ongoingskintrials) transferred all trials to the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), which was included in our search strategy, we did not run a search in the Cochrane Skin Group Ongoing Skin Trials Register.

We replaced survival data from van Doorn 2000 with data from the more recently‐published study, Agar 2010.

We added an analysis of the P values via the Fisher test for subtotals in order to gain more accurate analysis for smaller sample sizes.

We added the section Unit of analysis issues.

The application of the rule of three by Hanley 1983 was removed, since it is not applicable for missing data.

Asssessment of reporting bias, subgroup analysis, and investigation of heterogeneity as well as sensitivity analyses were not performed because of the low number of comparable trials.

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.