ArticleBMJ open2021
Values and other decisional factors regarding treatment of hypercalcaemia of malignancy: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing the Trustworthiness of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) is the second most common cause of hypercalcaemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. The aim of this study was to summarise the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of HCM. These include patient's values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility and equity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021264371). This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with HCM. We will develop and execute two independent search strategies using five databases: PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and review their combined output. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup summaries by drug class or aetiology of HCM. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for our study, since we will only collect data from available literature. This systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.