Dataset Information

Comparison of value of biomarkers in diagnosing lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Furthermore, the incidence rate is increasing in many countries. Many lung cancer patients have a poor prognosis because they are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop effective methods for early diagnosis of lung cancer. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. However, it remains unclear which biomarker has superior performance for early and accurate detection of lung cancer. This overview aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to find an optimal biomarker for diagnosing lung cancer.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify relevant systematic reviews including randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, or cohort studies that reported the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. The methodological quality will be assessed using AMASAR-2 checklist, and the reporting quality will be assessed using PRISMA-DTA checklist. Bubble plot will be generated to map the biomarkers, methodological and reporting quality. The pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons will be performed using STATA 13.0.

Results

The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal CONCLUSION:: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for the diagnosis of lung cancer.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.

SUBMITTER: Wu F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6531075 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of value of biomarkers in diagnosing lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews protocol.

Wu Fanqi F Wang Hong H Tao Hongyan H Huang Huirong H Zhang Longguo L Wu Di D Wan Yixin Y

Medicine 20190501 19

<h4>Background</h4>In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Furthermore, the incidence rate is increasing in many countries. Many lung cancer patients have a poor prognosis because they are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop effective methods for early diagnosis of lung cancer. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. However ...[more]

PMID: 31083197

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Qigong, as one of the essential elements of Traditional Chinese exercises, has been used to improve physical and psychological health and combat diseases in China for thousands of years. In recent years, the beneficial effects of Qigong on different medical conditions are becoming more accepted by both patients and health care providers. Although it is a common impression that Qigong and related therapies are generally safe procedures, but the current understanding of its adverse events is fragmented. Thus, we conducted this overview to synthesize comprehensively existing systematic reviews on adverse events associated with Qigong and related therapies, and our findings can be used to informing clinicians, Qigong practitioner, and patients alike on applying such treatments or interventions in clinical treatment and daily life training mindful manner, and provide a guideline for researchers in future. METHODS:A systematic review of reviews will be performed. A literature search strategy designed by a number of specialists in the fields of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), sports medicine, health information, and Qigong training will be carried out in relevant English and Chinese electronic database. The date range of search will start from inception to the search date. Two reviewers will identify relevant studies, extract data information, and then assess the methodical quality by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Any types of systematic review that summarized adverse effects related to Qigong and related therapies in human will be included. Any safety-related outcomes will be considered as the primary outcomes of this overview. Where objectives from 2 or more reviews overlap, we will assess the causes of any noted discrepancies between reviews. An overall summary of results will be performed using tabular and graphical approaches and will be supplemented by narrative description. RESULTS:This overview will identify any adverse events associated with nonstandardized Qigong and related therapies procedures based on current relevant literature evidence of safety for Qigong. CONCLUSION:Our overview will provide evidence to help synthesize the broad degree of information available on furthering the knowledge, safety, and application of Qigong. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Formal ethical approval is not required, as this study is an overview based on the published systematic reviews. The result of this overview of systematic reviews will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42018109409.

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of targeted therapies for cancer has contributed to dramatic improvements in patient survival. Nevertheless, several targeted therapies have been associated with 'off-target' adverse effects, based on varying levels of evidence. To date, this evidence has not been systematically synthesised. We will synthesise published systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity associated with targeted cancer therapies.Methods and analysisWe will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and observational studies that report on cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents. We will identify systematic reviews by applying predeveloped, standardised search strategies within Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central. Two independent reviewers will identify reviews published up to 31 December 2016 using predefined eligibility criteria. They will resolve ambiguous cases through consensus, arbitrated by a third reviewer if required. The reviewers will extract and report data according to methodological guidelines for overviews provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. They will assess the quality of included reviews by applying the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. They will judge the quality of evidence in included reviews based on their assessment of bias and incorporation into the interpretation of findings. In synthesising the evidence, we will classify agents based on systematic review evidence of toxicity (sufficient, probable, possible or indeterminate) for specific cardiovascular outcomes (congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction decline, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and hypertension). This will provide clinicians and patients with an accessible synthesis based on robust methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for overviews. We will conduct the study in collaboration with consumer representatives. We will submit results for peer-review publication, and disseminate them through established clinical and consumer networks.Prospero registration numberCRD42017080014.

Project description:IntroductionInterventions targeting behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain have been introduced to combat the opioid crisis. Systematic reviews have evaluated effects of specific interventions (eg, prescriber education, prescription drug monitoring programmes) on patient and population health outcomes and prescriber behaviour. Integration of findings across intervention types is needed to better understand the effects of prescriber-targeted interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct an overview of systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include primary studies that evaluated any intervention targeting the behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in an outpatient or mixed setting, compared with no intervention, usual practice or another active or control intervention. Eligible outcomes will pertain to the intervention effect on patient and population health or opioid prescribing behaviour. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos from inception. We will also hand search reference lists for additional publications. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The risk of bias of included systematic reviews will be assessed in duplicate by two reviewers using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Results will be synthesised narratively by intervention type and grouped by outcome. To assist with result interpretation, outcomes will be labelled as intended or unintended according to intervention objectives, and as positive, negative, evidence of no effect or inconclusive evidence according to effect on the population (for patient and population health outcomes) or intervention objectives (for prescriber outcomes).Ethics and disseminationAs the proposed study will use published data, ethics approval is not required. Dissemination of results will be achieved through publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42020156815.

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of access to healthcare for all is internationally recognised as a global goal, high on the global agenda. Yet inequalities in health exist within and between countries which are exacerbated by inequalities in access to healthcare. In order to address these inequalities, we need to better understand what drives them. While there exists a wealth of research on access to healthcare in different countries and contexts, and for different patient groups, to date no attempt has been made to bring this evidence together through a global lens. This study aims to address that gap by bringing together evidence of what factors affect patients' access to healthcare and exploring how those factors vary in different countries and contexts around the world.MethodsAn overview of reviews will be conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to search four databases: Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Additional searches will be conducted on the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Bank websites. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the eligibility criteria and full-text articles will be obtained for all records that meet the inclusion criteria or where there is uncertainty around eligibility. A data extraction table will be developed during the review process and will be piloted and refined before full data extraction commences. Methodological quality/risk of bias will be assessed for each included study using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality assessment will be used to inform the narrative synthesis, but a low-quality score will not necessarily lead to study exclusion.DiscussionFactors affecting patients' ability to access healthcare will be identified and analysed according to different country and context characteristics to shed light on the importance of different factors in different settings. Results will be interpreted accounting for the usual challenges associated with conducting such reviews. The results may guide future research in this area and contribute to priority setting for development initiatives aimed at ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019144775.

Dataset Information

Comparison of value of biomarkers in diagnosing lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews protocol.

Background

Methods

Results

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Comparison of value of biomarkers in diagnosing lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets