Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470701›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

Preservation of gonadal function in women undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the potential role for gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.

Lisa C Hickman, Natalia C Llarena, Lindsey N Valentine, Xiaobo Liu, Tommaso Falcone

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa C HickmanDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Natalia C LlarenaDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Lindsey N ValentineDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Xiaobo LiuDepartment of Quantitative Health Science, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Tommaso FalconeDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. falcont@ccf.org.
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the literature investigating the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) co-treatment for ovarian preservation in women receiving chemotherapy.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed from 1960 through 2017 to identify relevant RCTs. Included patients had lymphoma, ovarian cancer, or breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who retained ovarian function after chemotherapy. Extracted data points included study design, patient characteristics, and proportion of women who developed premature ovarian failure (POF). A risk of bias assessment was performed according to the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The pooled odds ratio was calculated, and outcomes of individual studies were compared using the random-effects model with the inverse-variance method and the DerSimonian-Laird estimator.

resultsTwenty-nine RCTs were identified, and 10 met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. An analysis of patients who did not develop POF after chemotherapy revealed eight studies supporting the use of GnRHa (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.34-2.49). The duration of benefit of GnRHa is unclear. An analysis of three studies with outcome data at 2 years revealed a non-significant OR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.22-1.30) for the preservation of ovarian function with GnRHa treatment.

conclusionGnRHa may have a protective effect against the development of POF after gonadotoxic chemotherapy; however, the duration of benefit is unclear and requires further study.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneGonadsNeoplasmsPrimary Ovarian InsufficiencyFemaleHumansPregnancyTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneLHRH, Ala(6)-Gly(10)-ethylamide-ChemotherapyGonadotropin-releasing hormoneOvarian functionPremature ovarian failureSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29470701
PMCPMC5949114
OpenAlexW2792164896

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.