Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32404398›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Kurinchi Gurusamy, Claire L Vale, Elena Pizzo, R Bhanot, Brian R Davidson, Tim Mould, Muntzer Mughal, Mark Saunders, Omer Aziz, Sarah O'Dwyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pleura and peritoneum · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kurinchi GurusamyDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK k.gurusamy@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0313-9134
Claire L ValeMeta-analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Elena PizzoDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
R BhanotDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Brian R DavidsonDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Tim MouldGynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
Muntzer MughalSurgery, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mark SaundersColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Omer AzizColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Sarah O'DwyerColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
The Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/25
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery. PRIMARY

objectivesTo compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SECONDARY

objectivesTo compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019130504.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHyperthermic Intraperitoneal ChemotherapyPeritoneal NeoplasmsStandard of CareColorectal NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisQuality of Lifechemotherapyhealth economicsoncologyqualitative researchsurgery

Identifiers

PMID32404398
PMCPMC7228534
OpenAlexW3024721080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.