Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer : a systematic review
(2022) In BMJ Open 12(4).- Abstract
Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for... (More)
Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.
(Less)
- author
- author collaboration
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- epidemiology, prostate disease, urological tumours
- in
- BMJ Open
- volume
- 12
- issue
- 4
- article number
- e058267
- publisher
- BMJ Publishing Group
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:35379637
- scopus:85127525952
- ISSN
- 2044-6055
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058267
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- a96e3385-6bd4-4f19-8cec-d03645564a6b
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-14 14:21:24
- date last changed
- 2024-06-13 07:04:26
@article{a96e3385-6bd4-4f19-8cec-d03645564a6b,
abstract = {{<p>Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications. </p>}},
author = {{Beyer, Katharina and Moris, Lisa and Lardas, Michael and Haire, Anna and Barletta, Francesco and Scuderi, Simone and Molnar, Megan and Herrera, Ronald and Rauf, Abdul and Campi, Riccardo and Greco, Isabella and Shiranov, Kirill and Dabestani, Saeed and Van Den Broeck, Thomas and Arun, Sujenthiran and Gacci, Mauro and Gandaglia, Giorgio and Omar, Muhammad Imran and MacLennan, Steven and Roobol, Monique J. and Farahmand, Bahman and Vradi, Eleni and Devecseri, Zsuzsanna and Asiimwe, Alex and Zong, Jihong and MacLennan, Sara J. and Collette, Laurence and Ndow, James and Briganti, Alberto and Bjartell, Anders and Van Hemelrijck, Mieke}},
issn = {{2044-6055}},
keywords = {{epidemiology; prostate disease; urological tumours}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{4}},
publisher = {{BMJ Publishing Group}},
series = {{BMJ Open}},
title = {{Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer : a systematic review}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058267}},
doi = {{10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058267}},
volume = {{12}},
year = {{2022}},
}