Back to Search Start Over

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Authors :
Mieke Van Hemelrijck
Muhammad Imran Omar
Jihong Zong
Katharina Beyer
Lisa Moris
Michael Lardas
Anna Haire
Francesco Barletta
Simone Scuderi
Eleni Vradi
Giorgio Gandaglia
Steven MacLennan
Bahman Farahmand
Sara J Maclennan
Zsuzsanna Devecseri
Alex Asiimwe
Laurence Collette
Anders Bjartell
James Ndow
Alberto Briganti
Thomas Van den Broeck
Riccardo Campi
Isabella Greco
Mauro Gacci
Megan Molnar
Ronald Herrera
Monique J Roobol
Abdul Rauf
Kirill Shiranov
Saeed Dabestani
Sujenthiran Arun
Source :
BMJ Open, Vol 12, Iss 4 (2022)
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
BMJ Publishing Group, 2022.

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 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.

Subjects

Subjects :
Medicine

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20210582 and 20446055
Volume :
12
Issue :
4
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
BMJ Open
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.6a9eea08bc0d4eb2953468c275589308
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058267