Dataset Information

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population.

Methods

We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible.

Discussion

This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD42016050765.

SUBMITTER: Mandrik O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5490169 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.

Mandrik O O Ekwunife O I OI Zielonke N N Meheus F F Severens J L JL Lhachimi S K SK Murillo R R

Systematic reviews 20170628 1

<h4>Background</h4>Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability ...[more]

PMID: 28659183

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Debates about the benefits and harms of mammography continue despite the accumulation of evidence. We sought to quantify the disagreement across systematic reviews of mammography and determine whether author or design characteristics were associated with conclusions that were favourable to the use of mammography for routine breast cancer screening. METHODS:We identified systematic reviews of mammography published between January 2000 and November 2015, and extracted information about the selection of evidence, age groups, the use of meta-analysis, and authors' professions and financial competing interest disclosures. Conclusions about specific age groups were graded as favourable if they stated that there were meaningful benefits, that benefits of mammography outweighed harms, or that harms were inconsequential. The main outcome measures were the proportions of favourable conclusions relative to review design and author characteristics. RESULTS:From 59 conclusions identified in 50 reviews, 42% (25/59) were graded as favourable by two investigators. Among the conclusions produced by clinicians, 63% (12/19) were graded as favourable compared to 32% (13/40) from other authors. In the 50-69 age group where the largest proportion of systematic reviews were focused, conclusions drawn by authors without financial competing interests (odds ratio 0.06; 95% CI 0.07-0.56) and non-clinicians (odds ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.84) were less likely to be graded as favourable. There was no trend in the proportion of favourable conclusions over the period, and we found no significant association between review design characteristics and favourable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS:Differences in the conclusions of systematic reviews of the evidence for mammography have persisted for 15 years. We found no strong evidence that design characteristics were associated with greater support for the benefits of mammography in routine breast cancer screening. Instead, the results suggested that the specific expertise and competing interests of the authors influenced the conclusions of systematic reviews.

Project description:BackgroundTrans people face uncertain risk for breast cancer and barriers to accessing breast screening. Our objectives were to identify and synthesize primary research evidence on the effect of cross-sex hormones (CSHs) on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality among trans people, the benefits and harms of breast screening in this population, and existing clinical practice recommendations on breast screening for trans people.MethodsWe conducted 2 systematic reviews of primary research, 1 on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality, and the other on the benefits and harms of breast screening, and a third systematic review of guidelines on existing screening recommendations for trans people. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for primary research, guidelines and position statements published in English between 1997 and 2017. Citations were screened by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The results were synthesized narratively.ResultsFour observational studies, 6 guidelines and 5 position statements were included. Observational evidence of very low certainty did not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk in trans men or trans women. Among trans women, painfulness of mammography and ultrasonography was low. There was no evidence on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer prognosis and mortality, or on benefits and other harms of screening. Existing clinical practice documents recommended screening for distinct trans subpopulations; however, recommendations varied.InterpretationThe limited evidence does not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits and harms of breast screening, existing clinical practice documents generally recommend screening for trans people; further large-scale prospective comparative research is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Periodontal diseases are responsible for a vast burden of disease globally and are associated with other severe illnesses such as cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. Tests for early diagnosis of periodontal diseases and effective treatments are available. The effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases to detect periodontal diseases at an early stage during periodic health examinations at primary care facilities, however, is unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the benefits and risks of screening for periodontal diseases in adults during the periodic health examinations. METHODS:We will use two methodological approaches: (1) a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations and (2) an overview of systematic reviews to determine the effectiveness of treatment approaches for early periodontal disease. We will search electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com , the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, PubMed (non-MEDLINE content)) for published studies as well as sources for grey literature to detect unpublished studies. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts using pre-defined eligibility criteria, select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of included studies or reviews. In general, we will conduct a systematic narrative synthesis. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined a priori. Our primary outcomes of interest are tooth loss, loosening of teeth, and depletion of bone tissue. Secondary outcomes are gingivitis/gum inflammation, pocket depths, dental hygiene, lifestyle modifications (e.g., smoking, alcohol, nutrition), and toothache. We consulted a panel of experts and patient representatives to prioritize these outcomes. Two investigators will assess independently the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DISCUSSION:We anticipate that our review will highlight the gaps in the available evidence about the effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations. Implications for screening programs may be based on linked evidence about the validity of available screening tools and the effectiveness of early treatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017081150.

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide. Post-treatment, patients suffer from side effects and have various rehabilitation needs, which means that individualization is fundamental for optimal rehabilitation. This systematic review (SR) of SRs aims to evaluate the current evidence on rehabilitation interventions in female patients following BC treatment.MethodsFull-text SRs published in English from 2009 were searched in Embase, PubMed, Cinahl Complete, PsycINFO, AMED, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library.Inclusion criteriaSRs of randomized or non-randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of rehabilitation interventions in women following BC treatment. All outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool and interrater agreement was evaluated. Out of 1269 citations retrieved, 37 SRs were included.ResultsFive rehabilitation areas were identified: exercise and physical activity (PA), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), yoga, lymphoedema treatment, and psychosocial interventions. The most solid evidence was found in exercise/PA and yoga. Exercise interventions improved outcomes such as shoulder mobility, lymphoedema, pain, fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Effects of yoga were shown on QoL, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue and gastrointestinal symptoms. The effect of CAM was shown on nausea, pain, fatigue, anger and anxiety but these results need to be interpreted with caution because of low methodological quality in included studies in the SRs. Among the lymphoedema treatments, positive effects were seen for resistance training on volume reduction and muscle strength and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy had positive effects on QoL, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance.ConclusionsThis SR of SRs show solid positive effects of exercise/PA and yoga for women following BC treatment, and provides extended knowledge of the effects of CAM, yoga, lymphoedema treatment and psychosocial interventions. It is evident that more than one intervention could have positive effects on a specific symptom and that the effects depend not only on intervention type but also on how and when the intervention is provided. The results can be used as a foundation for individualized rehabilitation and aid health care professionals in meeting patients' individual needs and preferences.Trial registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42017060912 ).

Dataset Information

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets