Institution
Cochrane Collaboration
Nonprofit•Oxford, United Kingdom•
About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Training interventions evaluated to date appear to have very little effect on outcomes relating to looked-after children, assessed in relation to psychological functioning, extent of behavioural problems and interpersonal functioning.
Abstract: Behavioural and cognitive behavioural training interventions for assisting foster carers in the management of difficult behaviour - no strong evidence yetProviding training for foster carers is thought to enhance caring attitudes and skills, help foster carers deal more effectively with foster children's behaviour, and decrease foster carer attrition Although training programs have proliferated, there has been minimal evaluative research to determine whether they are effectiveThis review attempted to determine the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural training interventions Only six trials involving 463 foster carers were included Results suggest little evidence of effect on looked-after children, foster carers and fostering agency outcomes
54 citations
••
TL;DR: What the new systematic review found and how a series of failures meant that decisions about these drugs were made without the full evidence are explained.
Abstract: Last year the Cochrane team, with the help of the BMJ’s open data campaign, finally got access to full clinical study reports on neuraminidase inhibitors. Tom Jefferson and Peter Doshi explain what the new systematic review found and how a series of failures meant that decisions about these drugs were made without the full evidence
54 citations
••
TL;DR: This meta-analysis showed that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable or advanced stage HL benefited from chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP regarding PFS, but there was no significant difference in OS.
Abstract: Background
There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen.
Objectives
To provide an evidence-based answer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD.
Search methods
We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to November 2010) and EMBASE (1985 to November 2008).
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared to chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL.
Data collection and analysis
Effect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression. Relative risks were used to analyse complete response rate, treatment-related mortality and adverse events. Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed quality of trials.
Main results
A total of 790 records were screened. Five eligible trials (four published, one ongoing), were identified. These trials included only adult patients (16 to 60 years of age). Four trials with 2868 patients were included in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials from Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials from Italy. All trials reported results for PFS and OS. PFS was statistically significantly longer for escalated BEACOPP: HR was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.64, I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the comparators: HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.09, I2 = 0%). Three trials reported adverse events: the escalated BEACOPP regimens caused statistically significantly more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV (anaemia P < 0.00001, neutropenia P = 0.007, thrombocytopenia P < 0.00001), infections (P < 0.00001)) and occurrence of myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (P = 0.05). There were no differences between both regimens for secondary malignancies, treatment-related mortality or infertility.
Authors' conclusions
This meta-analysis showed that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable or advanced stage HL benefited from chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP regarding PFS, but there was no significant difference in OS. Longer follow-up and the inclusion of the EORTC 20012 trial will lead to a more definitive answer with respect to OS.
54 citations
••
TL;DR: A pragmatic trial has shown that, in the real world setting of public sector clinics in South Africa, economic support to patients with tuberculosis does not significantly improve outcomes on treatment.
Abstract: Poverty undermines adherence to tuberculosis treatment. Economic support may both encourage and enable patients to complete treatment. In South Africa, which carries a high burden of tuberculosis, such support may improve the currently poor outcomes of patients on tuberculosis treatment. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of delivering economic support to patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in a high-burden province of South Africa. This was a pragmatic, unblinded, two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial, where 20 public sector clinics acted as clusters. Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in intervention clinics (n = 2,107) were offered a monthly voucher of ZAR120.00 (approximately US$15) until the completion of their treatment. Vouchers were redeemed at local shops for foodstuffs. Patients in control clinics (n = 1,984) received usual tuberculosis care. Intention to treat analysis showed a small but non-significant improvement in treatment success rates in intervention clinics (intervention 76.2%; control 70.7%; risk difference 5.6% (95% confidence interval: -1.2%, 12.3%), P = 0.107). Low fidelity to the intervention meant that 36.2% of eligible patients did not receive a voucher at all, 32.3% received a voucher for between one and three months and 31.5% received a voucher for four to eight months of treatment. There was a strong dose–response relationship between frequency of receipt of the voucher and treatment success (P <0.001). Our pragmatic trial has shown that, in the real world setting of public sector clinics in South Africa, economic support to patients with tuberculosis does not significantly improve outcomes on treatment. However, the low fidelity to the delivery of our voucher meant that a third of eligible patients did not receive it. Among patients in intervention clinics who received the voucher at least once, treatment success rates were significantly improved. Further operational research is needed to explore how best to ensure the consistent and appropriate delivery of such support to those eligible to receive it. Current Controlled Trials
ISRCTN50689131
54 citations
••
TL;DR: This work transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules, to promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis.
Abstract: To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance.
54 citations
Authors
Showing all 2000 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Douglas G. Altman | 253 | 1001 | 680344 |
John P. A. Ioannidis | 185 | 1311 | 193612 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
George A. Wells | 149 | 941 | 114256 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Holger J. Schünemann | 141 | 810 | 113169 |
Paul G. Shekelle | 132 | 601 | 101639 |
Peter Tugwell | 129 | 948 | 125480 |
Jeremy M. Grimshaw | 123 | 691 | 115126 |
Peter Jüni | 121 | 593 | 99254 |
John J. McGrath | 120 | 791 | 124804 |
Arne Astrup | 114 | 866 | 68877 |
Mike Clarke | 113 | 1037 | 164328 |
Rachelle Buchbinder | 112 | 613 | 94973 |
Ian Roberts | 112 | 714 | 51933 |