Dataset Information

Role of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review protocol of randomised controlled trial studies.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity worldwide and it has been reported to be associated with poor lifestyle habits which include excess tobacco and alcohol intake as well as genetics and age factors. Probiotics such as the lactic acid bacteria and Bifidobacterium as well as probiotic containing foods (kombucha, kefir, miso etc) have received lots of attention as anticancer agents for prevention and treatment. The effects of the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer is the primary goal of this systematic review. The overall aim is to assess how the use of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer helps in the management of colorectal cancer and its effect on the diversity of gut microbiota. The final systematic review will provide a comprehensive evidence base for the use and efficacy of probiotics in patient with colorectal cancer care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The systematic review, will be conducted by extensively searching different databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley and ProQuest to identify randomised controlled trials (with no time frame) which relate to the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer. The search strategy will include words like colorectal cancer, probiotics, Bifidobacterium, clinical trials etc. A systematic search of databases was performed between 17 and 20 January 2020. Two reviewers will independently review the studies and also search the reference lists of the eligible studies to obtain more references. Data will be extracted from the eligible studies using standardised data extraction form. After assessing the risk of bias, qualitative analysis will be used to synthesise the systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This is a protocol for a systematic review; therefore, it doesn't require any ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the protocol in a peer reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Dikeocha IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7418674 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review protocol of randomised controlled trial studies.

Dikeocha Ifeoma Julieth IJ Al-Kabsi Abdelkodose Mohammed AM Hussin Salasawati S Alshawsh Mohammed Abdullah MA

BMJ open 20200807 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity worldwide and it has been reported to be associated with poor lifestyle habits which include excess tobacco and alcohol intake as well as genetics and age factors. Probiotics such as the lactic acid bacteria and <i>Bifidobacterium</i> as well as probiotic containing foods (kombucha, kefir, miso etc) have received lots of attention as anticancer agents for prevention and treatment. The effects of the a ...[more]

PMID: 32771989

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess to what extent probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery and whether probiotics or synbiotics should be considered as perioperative measures preventing or reducing infectious complications after CRS and should be included in enhanced recovery programmes (ERP). Secondary aims were to answer practical questions precisely on the best formulation and the type and timing of probiotics or synbiotics in CRS.MethodThis systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised trials comparing perioperative probiotics/synbiotics with a placebo or standard care in elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were non-randomised trials. Overall infectious complications and surgical site infections (SSIs including both deep abdominal infections and wound (skin or under the skin) infections) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary and urinary infections, wound infections, and anastomotic leaks. The databases consulted were Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Clinical Trials Register. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE approach. The analysis calculated the random effects estimates risk ratio (RR) for each outcome.Results21 trials were included; 15 evaluated probiotics, and 6 evaluated synbiotics. There were significantly fewer infectious complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.59 [0.47-0.75], I2 = 15%) and fewer SSI (RR 0.70 [0.52-0.95], I2 = 0%) in the probiotic or synbiotic group. There were also significantly fewer pulmonary infections (RR 0.35 [0.20-0.63]) and urinary infections RR 0.41 [0.19-0.87]) as opposed to anastomotic leaks (RR 0.83 [0.47-1.48]) and wound infections (RR 0.74 [0.53-1.03]). Sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference between probiotics and synbiotics in reducing postoperative infections (RR 0.55 [0.42-0.73] versus RR 0.69 [0.42-1.13], p = 0.46).ConclusionsBased on the finding of this study, probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The effect size was more pronounced for pulmonary and urinary infections. From a practical aspect, some of the questions related to formulations and duration of probiotics or synbiotics need to be answered before including them definitively in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery programmes.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Stroke is one of the primary causes of death and disability worldwide, leaving a considerable proportion of survivors with persistent cognitive and functional deficits. Despite the prevalence of poststroke cognitive impairment, there is no established treatment aimed at improving cognitive function following a stroke. Therefore, the aims of this systematic review are to identify psychological interventions intended to improve poststroke cognitive function and establish their efficacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic review of non-randomised controlled studies that investigated the efficacy of psychological interventions aimed at improving cognitive function in stroke survivors will be conducted. Electronic searches will be performed in the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, the search dating from the beginning of the index to February 2017. Reference lists of all identified relevant articles will be reviewed to identify additional studies not previously identified by the electronic search. Potential grey literature will be reviewed using Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts will be assessed for eligibility by one reviewer, with a random sample of 50% independently double-screened by second reviewers. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, with referral to a third reviewer where necessary. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Meta-analyses will be performed if studies are sufficiently homogeneous. This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The quality of the evidence regarding cognitive function will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic review will collect secondary data only and as such ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through presentations and peer-reviewed publication. This review will provide information on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for poststroke cognitive impairment, identifying which psychological interventions are effective for improving poststroke cognitive function. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017069714.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient's primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency.SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs.The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p . Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

Project description:Randomised control trials are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of healthcare interventions with thousands of trials published every year. Despite significant investment in infrastructure, a staggering number of clinical trials continue to face challenges with retention. Dropouts could lead to negative consequences-from lengthy delays to missing data that can undermine the results and integrity of the trial. Summarising evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies could provide complementary information to randomised evaluations that could guide trialists to the most effective ways of increasing retention of participants in clinical trials.The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant studies: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Methodology Register and the search will be limited to English-published studies during the last 10 years to increase relevance to current trials. Non-randomised studies (observational studies) including a comparison of two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials or comparing one or more strategies with no strategy will be included. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants remained at the primary analysis as determined in each retention study.This review aims to gather and evaluate evidence on the effect of retention strategies examined in non-randomised studies. It is imperative to collect evidence from obseravational studies to infer whether or not these studies could be considered a practical way to complement or even replace a broadly favourable randomised design. If we find that non-randomised studies to be included in this review are of high quality with adequate control of biases, we will recommend to trialists and others not to rely exclusively on randomised studies and to give meticulous attention to the plentiful evidence that can be obtained from non-randomised studies. Should the results of this review suggest that evaluating retention strategies in observational studies provides insufficient evidence to trialists planning their retention strategies, we will be able to say that there is little point in conducting non-randomised studies and that they would do better to invest their time and resources in a randomised evaluation if possible. Where a non-randomised study design is chosen, the review authors will offer recommendations to trialists and others regarding how to ensure that these studies are conducted in a way that can minimise the risk of bias and increase confidence in the findings.PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017072775 .

Project description:Search strategies for systematic reviews aim to identify all evidence relevant to the research question posed. Reports of methodological research can be difficult to find leading to biased results in systematic reviews of research methodology. Evidence suggests that contact with investigators can help to identify unpublished research. To identify additional eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for a Cochrane systematic review of strategies to improve retention in RCTs, we conducted a survey of UK clinical trials units (CTUs) and made contact with RCT methodologists.Key contacts for all UK CTUs were sent a personalised email with a short questionnaire and summary protocol of the Cochrane methodology review. The questionnaire asked whether a RCT evaluating strategies to improve retention embedded in a RCT had ever been conducted by the CTU. Questions about the stage of completion and publication of such RCTs were included. The summary protocol outlined the aims, eligibility criteria, examples of types of retention strategies, and the primary outcome for the systematic review. Personal communication with RCT methodologists and presentations of preliminary results of the review at conferences were also used to identify additional eligible RCTs. We checked the results of our standard searches to see if eligible studies identified through these additional methods were also found using our standard searches.We identified 14 of the 38 RCTs included in the Cochrane methodology review by contacting trials units and methodologists. Eleven of the 14 RCTs identified by these methods were either published in grey literature, in press or unpublished. Three remaining RCTs were fully published at the time. Six of the RCTs identified were not found through any other searches. The RCTs identified represented data for 6 of 14 RCTs of incentive strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the review), and 6 of 14 RCTs of communication strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the Cochrane review). Data were unavailable for two of the RCTs identified.Methodological evaluations embedded in RCTs may be unpublished, published in the grey literature or where published, poorly indexed in bibliographic databases. To identify such studies and minimise selection bias in systematic reviews of methodological evaluations, reviewers should consider contacting CTUs and trial methodologists.

Dataset Information

Role of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review protocol of randomised controlled trial studies.

Publications

Role of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review protocol of randomised controlled trial studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets