Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36367451›Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2023

Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: A systematic review.

Nathanael Yong, Natalie Cooper, Sarah Yorke, Chawan Baran, Khalid Khan, Alex Tan, Michail Sideris, Stamatina Iliodromiti, Ranjit Manchanda

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Nathanael YongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Natalie CooperWomen's Health Division, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Sarah YorkeInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Chawan BaranDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Khalid KhanDepartment of Preventative Medicine and Public Health, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5084-7312
Alex TanDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Michail SiderisWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Stamatina IliodromitiWomen's Health Division, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Ranjit ManchandaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3381-5057

Funding

British Medical Association's Strutt and Harper Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer affects 3197 women in the UK, and 604 000 women worldwide annually, with peak incidence seen in women between 30 and 34 years of age. For many, fertility-sparing surgery is an appealing option where possible. However, absence of large-scale data, along with a notable variation in reported outcomes in relevant studies, may undermine future efforts for consistent evidence synthesis.

objectivesTo systematically review the reported outcomes measured in studies that include women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer and identify whether variation exists. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, cohort and observational studies, and case studies of more than ten participants from January 1990 to date. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study characteristics and all reported treatment outcomes. MAIN

resultsA total of 104 studies with a sum of 9535 participants were identified. Most studies reported on oncological outcomes (97/104), followed by fertility and pregnancy (86/104), postoperative complications (74/104), intra-operative complications (72/104) and quality of life (5/104). There was huge variation and heterogeneity in reported outcomes, with only 12% being good quality and 87% being of poor quality.

conclusionsThere is significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. An agreed Core Outcome Set is necessary for future studies to effectively harmonise reported outcomes that are measurable and relevant to patients, clinicians and researchers. This systematic review sets the groundwork for the development of a Core Outcome Set for fertility-sparing surgery in cervical cancer.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleFertilityHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomecervical cancercore outcomesfertility-sparing

Identifiers

PMID36367451
PMCPMC10108142

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.