Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27563450›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2016

Comparative effectiveness of chemopreventive interventions for colorectal cancer: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Sajesh K Veettil, Surasak Saokaew, Kean Ghee Lim, Siew Mooi Ching, Pochamana Phisalprapa, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sajesh K VeettilSchool of Pharmacy/School of Postgraduate Studies, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia ;
Surasak SaokaewSchool of Pharmacy, Monash University, Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia;; Center of Health Outcomes Research and Therapeutic Safety (Cohorts), School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao Muang, Phayao 56000, Thailand;; Centre of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand;
Kean Ghee LimClinical School, Department of Surgery, International Medical University, Jalan Rasah, Seremban, 70300, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia ;
Siew Mooi ChingDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia;; Malaysian Research Institute on Ageing, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia;
Pochamana PhisalprapaDivision of Ambulatory Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand ;
Nathorn ChaiyakunaprukSchool of Pharmacy, Monash University, Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia;; Centre of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand;; School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;; School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and is associated with substantial socioeconomic burden. Despite considerable research, including numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews assessed the effect of various chemopreventive interventions for CRC, there remains uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these agents. No network meta-analytic study has been published to evaluate the efficacies of these agents for CRC. Therefore, the aim of this study is to summarise the direct and indirect evidence for these interventions to prevent CRC in average-high risk individuals, and to rank these agents for practical consideration.

methodsWe will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, CINAHL plus, IPA and clinicaltrials.gov website. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes are the incidence of CRC, the incidence/recurrence of any adenoma or change in polyp burden (number or size). Quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis will be considered. We will also construct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to improve precision of the comparisons among chemo-preventive interventions by combining direct and indirect evidence. The probability of each treatment being the best and/or safest, the number-needed-to-treat [NNT; 95% credible interval (CrIs)], and the number-needed-to-harm (NNH; 95% CrIs) will be calculated to provide measures of treatment efficacy. The GRADE approach will be used to rate the quality of evidence of estimates derived from NMA.

resultsThis protocol has been registered (registration number: CRD42015025849) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). The procedures of this systematic review and NMA will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-compliant guideline. The results of this systematic review and NMA will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this study will be the first NMA to identify the comparative effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of CRC. The results of our study will update evidence for chemoprevention of CRC, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews involving indirect comparisons.

Indexed as

chemopreventioncolorectal neoplasmsnetwork meta-analysis (NMA)Protocolrandomised controlled trials (RCTs)systematic review

Identifiers

PMID27563450
PMCPMC4963360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.