Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.
СтатьяОбзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alshamsan Bader, Hutton Brian, Liu Michelle, Vandermeer Lisa, Clemons Mark
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the successes and challenges of integrating systematic reviews (SRs) into the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.
METHODS: All REaCT program SRs were evaluated and descriptive summaries presented.
RESULTS: Twenty-two SRs have been performed evaluating standard of care interventions for the management of: breast cancer (n = 15), all tumour sites (n = 4), breast and prostate cancers (n = 2), and prostate cancer (n = 1). The majority of SRs were related to supportive care (n = 14) and survivorship (n = 5) interventions and most (19/22, 86%) confirmed the existence of uncertainty relating to the clinical question addressed in the SR. Most SRs (15/22, 68%) provided specific recommendations for future studies and results were incorporated into peer-reviewed grant applications (n = 6) and clinical trial design (n = 12). In 12/22 of the SRs, the first author was a trainee. All SRs followed PRISMA guidelines.
CONCLUSION: SRs are important for identifying and confirming clinical equipoise and designing trials. SRs provide an excellent opportunity for trainees to participate in research.
METHODS: All REaCT program SRs were evaluated and descriptive summaries presented.
RESULTS: Twenty-two SRs have been performed evaluating standard of care interventions for the management of: breast cancer (n = 15), all tumour sites (n = 4), breast and prostate cancers (n = 2), and prostate cancer (n = 1). The majority of SRs were related to supportive care (n = 14) and survivorship (n = 5) interventions and most (19/22, 86%) confirmed the existence of uncertainty relating to the clinical question addressed in the SR. Most SRs (15/22, 68%) provided specific recommendations for future studies and results were incorporated into peer-reviewed grant applications (n = 6) and clinical trial design (n = 12). In 12/22 of the SRs, the first author was a trainee. All SRs followed PRISMA guidelines.
CONCLUSION: SRs are important for identifying and confirming clinical equipoise and designing trials. SRs provide an excellent opportunity for trainees to participate in research.