Metformin for the treatment of breast cancer: protocol for a scoping review of randomised clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Innovation through the repurposing of generic drugs encloses several advantages when compared with the process of developing new drugs from scratch. Metformin is an established and inexpensive antidiabetic drug for which anticancer properties have been hypothesised. A systematic review of observational studies found promising results for metformin related to breast cancer in women with diabetes. Although the number of randomised clinical trials of metformin for the treatment of breast cancer increased over the last decades, the overall landscape of those studies in this heterogeneous field remains unclear. Hence, we designed the present scoping review protocol to map the literature on randomised clinical trials of metformin in the treatment of breast cancer to determine the value and scope of future systematic reviews on this subject and identify research gaps.Methods
We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, Web of Science and sources of grey literature. We will include any randomised clinical trial of metformin for the treatment of breast cancer in adult women, and will not impose restrictions regarding context, language or publication date. Two independent reviewers will screen and select studies, and chart the data. We will structure the presentation of our results based on the molecular types of breast cancer, their stages and treatment modalities.Ethics and dissemination
As a literature review, this study is exempt from ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated through presentations in conferences and a peer-reviewed publication. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION: osf.io/yquba.
SUBMITTER: Araujo CFM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8354283 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPatients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources.Ethics and disseminationA paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.
| S-EPMC6377514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a common mental health condition in adolescents. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing the safety and efficacy of interventions in this population. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported between RCTs limits the ability to compare, contrast, and combine trial results in a clinically meaningful way. There is currently no core outcome set (COS) available for use in RCTs evaluating interventions in adolescents with MDD. We will conduct a systematic scoping review of outcomes reported in adolescent depression RCTs to assess the variability of trial outcomes and to inform the development of a COS for adolescent MDD.Methods and analysisWe will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. RCTs evaluating any treatment intervention for adolescent MDD published in the last 10 years will be located using an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting of eligible studies will be performed in duplicate. Outcomes identified will be mapped to an outcome-domain framework. Data analysis will include summary statistics of the characteristics of the included trials and outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this review will inform the development of a COS for adolescent MDD. The development and implementation of a COS for RCTs evaluating interventions in adolescents with MDD promise to help reduce variability in trial outcome selection, definition, measurement and reporting, ultimately facilitating evidence synthesis that will help to identify the best treatment practices for adolescents with MDD.
| S-EPMC6340428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness owing, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Planned predictive enrichment based on secondary critical care data (often very rich with respect to both data types and temporal granularity) and causal inference methods may help overcome these challenges, but no overview exists about their use to this end.MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review to assess the extent and nature of the use of causal inference from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment of randomised clinical trials in critical care. We will systematically search 10 general and specialty journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We will collect trial metadata (e.g., recruitment period and phase) and, when available, information pertaining to the focus of the review (predictive enrichment based on causal inference estimates from secondary data): causal inference methods, estimation techniques and software used; types of patient populations; data provenance, types and models; and the availability of the data (public or not). The results will be reported in a descriptive manner.DiscussionThe outlined scoping review aims to assess the use of causal inference methods and secondary data for planned predictive enrichment in randomised critical care trials. This will help guide methodological improvements to increase the utility, and facilitate the use, of causal inference estimates when planning such trials in the future.
| S-EPMC9826202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrently, breast cancer ranks first among female malignancies; hence, there are strong recommendations for the early inclusion of these patients in palliative care. Palliative care aims to alleviate symptoms improving the quality of life of dying patients, an essential component of breast cancer care. This study aimed to map and synthesise the available evidence on palliative care for women with breast cancer and to discuss the review results with stakeholders.MethodsA scoping review protocol is presented in this article, consisting of two phases. In the first phase, a scoping review study will be conducted adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Nine databases, an electronic repository, a trial register website, grey literature and additional sources will be searched. A focus group discussion with six stakeholders will occur in the second phase. The analysis will be performed through inductive and manifest content analysis using the IRaMuTeQ V.0.7 alpha software.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review protocol did not require ethical approval. However, the study's second phase has been approved by the institutional review board of Maternidade Escola Assis Chateaubriand/MEAC/UFC. The findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publications.
| S-EPMC10410954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed.Methods and analysisWe will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.
| S-EPMC10119829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesSearches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).Eligibility criteriaReports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.ResultsA total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.ConclusionThis review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.
| S-EPMC10928784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInformed consent is essential to clinical research, though obtaining informed consent for participation in research for emergency conditions is challenging. Adapted consent methods include consent from a substitute-decision maker, deferral of consent and waiver of consent. A novel approach is to use advanced consent, where a potential participant provides consent in the present in the event that they become eligible for enrolment into a future study. This scoping review will map and synthesise the literature on the use of advanced consent for participation and enrolment in randomised control trials for emergency conditions.Methods and analysisGuided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework, we will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials), the grey literature sources and reference lists of relevant studies. Eligible studies will include English language articles that discuss, examine or employ the use of advanced consent for enrolment in randomised control trials, specifically related to emergency conditions or emergency treatment. Diverse types of articles will be eligible for inclusion, including peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies such as randomised control trials, observational studies, surveys, systematic reviews, as well as narrative reviews and ethics papers. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data on bibliographic information, study characteristics and methodology, and reported results, specifically author disposition, will be extracted and described using qualitative analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics review is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The findings of this study will help identify knowledge gaps that may guide areas for future research and may aid in the design of future clinical trials using advanced consent.
| S-EPMC7569993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.MethodsAn extensive search of the literature until March 2016 was carried out in Medline and clinicaltrials.gov, by using the search terms "sorafenib" and "breast cancer". Papers found were checked for further relevant publications. Overall, 21 relevant studies were found, 18 in advanced breast cancer (16 in stage IV and two in stages III-IV) and three in early breast cancer.ResultsAmong studies in advanced breast cancer, there were two trials with sorafenib as monotherapy, four trials of sorafenib in combination with taxanes, two in combination with capecitabine, one with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine, one with vinorelbine, one with bevacizumab, one with pemetrexed and one with ixabepilone, three trials of sorafenib in combination with endocrine therapy and two trials in women with brain metastases undergoing whole brain radiotherapy. In addition, there was one trial of sorafenib added to standard chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, and two trials in the neoadjuvant setting. In general, sorafenib was well tolerated in breast cancer patients, though its dosage had to be adjusted in some trials, and discontinuation rates were high, particularly for the combination of sorafenib with anastrozole. Sorafenib monotherapy and combinations with taxanes, bevacizumab and ixabepilone showed inadequate efficacy, while efficacy results from combinations with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine and possibly tamoxifen were more promising.ConclusionAt present, sorafenib should not be used for the treatment of breast cancer outside of clinical trials and more clinical data are needed in order to support its standard use in breast cancer therapy.
| S-EPMC4974240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAdoption of rigorous standards for reporting treatment fidelity is essential for advancing discovery, validation, and implementation of behavioral treatments. Whereas the NIH Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) developed an assessment tool to assess the quality of reporting and monitoring of treatment fidelity across health behavior change interventions, it has not yet been applied specifically to treatment fidelity in behavioral tobacco treatment trials.Aims and methodsWe conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed, clinical trials of behavioral adult tobacco treatment interventions published in English between 2006 and 2018. Using the BCC treatment fidelity checklist, articles were coded for the presence or absence of various treatment fidelity strategies within each of 5 domains: Design, Training, Delivery, Receipt, and Enactment. Eligible articles (N = 755) were coded by two independent coders.ResultsThe proportion of reporting strategies varied within the fidelity domains, ranging from 5.2% to 96.3% in Design, 1.9% to 24.9% in Training, 2.6% to 32.3% in Delivery, 5.2% to 44.3% in Receipt, and 6.7% to 43.2% in Enactment. The mean proportion of adherence to treatment fidelity strategies within each domain was: Design (68%), Training (14%), Delivery (15%), Receipt (16%), and Enactment (25%). Only 11 studies achieved ≥80% reporting across >1 fidelity domain. There was no evidence for improvement in fidelity reporting across the 13-year time frame from the initial BCC publication to the present.ConclusionsThese findings illustrate the lack of consistency in fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials and underscore the challenges faced in evaluating rigor and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings. Recommendations are made for improving fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials.ImplicationsThe SRNT Treatment Research Network sponsored a scoping review to summarize the current state of reporting treatment fidelity and make recommendations for best practices in reporting fidelity in tobacco treatment trials. The review identified a lack of consistency in fidelity reporting, illustrating the challenges faced in evaluating rigor, and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings.
| S-EPMC9013002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.
| S-EPMC6661623 | biostudies-literature