BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment (CTRCI) can substantially reduce the quality of life of cancer survivors. Many treatments of CTRCI have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including psychological interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and other therapies. There is a pressing need to establish the benefits and harms of previously studied CTRCI treatments. The proposed systematic review and network meta-analyses will assess the relative efficacy and safety of competing interventions for the management of CTRCI.
METHODS: In consultation with the review team, an experienced medical information specialist will draft electronic search strategies for MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Trials Registry. We will seek RCTs of interventions for the treatment of CTRCI in adults with any cancer, except cancers/metastases of the central nervous system. Due to the anticipated high search yields, dual independent screening of citations will be expedited by use of an artificial intelligence/machine learning tool. The co-primary outcomes of interest will be subjective and objective cognitive function. Secondary outcomes of interest will include measures of quality of life, mental and physical health symptoms, adherence to treatment, and harms (overall and treatment-related harms and harms associated with study withdrawal), where feasible, random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be pursued. We will address the anticipated high clinical and methodological heterogeneity through meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and/or sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed systematic review will deliver a robust comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of existing therapies for the management of CTRCI. These findings will inform clinical decisions, identify evidence gaps, and identify promising therapies for future evaluation in RCTs.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically sound analyses and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions.
METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (ie, guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last 5 years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for using ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naive comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical-effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique used depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review\'s (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee\'s (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations.
METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER\'s proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA\'s certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement.
RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA\'s rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

OBJECTIVE: The use of secondary databases has become popular for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of interventions in real-life settings. However, the absence of important confounders in these databases is challenging. To address this issue, the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) algorithm was developed in 2009. This algorithm uses proxy variables for mitigating confounding by combining information available across several healthcare dimensions. This study assessed the methodology and reporting of the hdPS in comparative effectiveness and safety research.
METHODS: In this methodological review, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar from July 2009 to May 2022 for studies that used the hdPS for evaluating the effectiveness or safety of healthcare interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed how the hdPS was applied and reported. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
RESULTS: In total, 136 studies met the inclusion criteria; the median publication year was 2018 (Q1-Q3 2016-2020). The studies included 192 datasets, mostly North American databases (n = 132, 69%). The hdPS was used in primary analysis in 120 studies (88%). Dimensions were defined in 101 studies (74%), with a median of 5 (Q1-Q3 4-6) dimensions included. A median of 500 (Q1-Q3 200-500) empirically identified covariates were selected. Regarding hdPS reporting, only 11 studies (8%) reported all recommended items. Most studies (n = 81, 60%) had a moderate overall risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in the reporting of hdPS studies, especially regarding the transparency of methodological choices that underpin the construction of the hdPS.

Population-adjusted indirect comparison (PAIC) is an increasingly used technique for estimating the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for the health technology assessments when head-to-head trials are unavailable. Three commonly used PAIC methods include matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR). MAIC enables researchers to achieve balanced covariate distribution across two independent trials when individual participant data are only available in one trial. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the MAIC methods, including their theoretical derivation, implicit assumptions, and connection to calibration estimation in survey sampling. We discuss the nuances between anchored and unanchored MAIC, as well as their required assumptions. Furthermore, we implement various MAIC methods in a user-friendly R Shiny application Shiny-MAIC. To our knowledge, it is the first Shiny application that implements various MAIC methods. The Shiny-MAIC application offers choice between anchored or unanchored MAIC, choice among different types of covariates and outcomes, and two variance estimators including bootstrap and robust standard errors. An example with simulated data is provided to demonstrate the utility of the Shiny-MAIC application, enabling a user-friendly approach conducting MAIC for healthcare decision-making. The Shiny-MAIC is freely available through the link: https://ziren.shinyapps.io/Shiny_MAIC/.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection.
METHODS: We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58).
RESULTS: Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection-naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs.

To review the status of comparative effectiveness studies for kidney stone disease with focus on study outcome, type, population, time trends, and patient-centered approaches.
A systematic scoping review was performed for articles published between January 1, 2005, and March 30, 2021, using keywords relevant to kidney stone disease. Studies published in English that compared two or more alternative methods for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, or care delivery were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts and an arbitrator resolved discrepancies. Nine reviewers abstracted information from full-length studies. Descriptive statistics were summarized, and linear regression was performed to evaluate temporal trends of study characteristics.
We reviewed 1773 abstracts and 707 full-length manuscripts focused on surgical intervention (440); medical expulsive therapy (MET) (152); analgesic control (80); and homeopathic, diagnostics, and/or prophylaxis (84). Randomized controlled trials were common across all outcome categories, including surgery (41.6%), MET (60.2%), analgesic control (81.3%), homeopathic (41.2%), diagnostic (47.6%), and prophylaxis (49.1%). Patient-reported outcomes were utilized in 71.7% and 95% of MET and analgesic control studies, respectively, but in the minority of all other study themes. Over time, meta-analyses and multicenter studies increased [P < .001].
Surgical and MET themes dominate published comparative literature in kidney stone disease. There is substantial variation in use of patient-reported outcomes across surgical themes. Multicentered studies and those generating higher level evidence have increased over time but opportunities exist to improve collaborative, high-quality, and patient-centered research in kidney stone disease.