Clinical Usefulness of Tools to Support Decision-making for Palliative Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making regarding palliative treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is complex and comprises numerous decisions. Decision-making should be guided by the premise of maintaining and/or improving patients' quality of life, by patient preference, and by the trade-off between treatment benefits and harm. Decision support systems (DSSs) for clinicians (eg, nomograms) can assist in this process. The present systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the available DSSs for incurable mCRC and to assess their clinical usefulness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We extracted information on the DSS characteristics and their discriminatory ability, calibration, and user-friendliness. RESULTS: From 5205 studies, we identified 14 DSSs for decisions regarding palliative resection of the primary tumor (n = 3), radiotherapy for metastases (n = 2), treatment type (invasive vs. symptomatic only; n = 7), and selection of chemotherapy (n = 2). The predictors varied greatly among the DSSs, and only 1 DSS incorporated a genetic marker (ie, UGT1A1). None of the DSSs included > 1 treatment option, nor did any DSS present estimates of treatment benefits and harms. Five tools had not been externally validated, two had only been validated in < 35 patients, and the rest had only been validated in populations similar to the population used for their development. Discriminatory accuracy was generally moderate to poor. Calibration measures were only reported for 2 tools. CONCLUSION: A limited number of DSSs are available to support palliative treatment decisions for patients with mCRC, and the evidence regarding their discriminatory ability and calibration is too limited to recommend their use. New DSSs comparing multiple treatment options and presenting both treatment benefits and harms are needed.

Systematic review: do patient expectations influence treatment outcomes in total knee and total hip arthroplasty?

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarise all the available evidence related to the association between pre-operative patient expectations (outcome expectations, process expectations and self efficacy expectations) and 5 different treatment outcomes (overall improvement, pain, function, stiffness and satisfaction) in patients with total knee or total hip arthroplasty at three different follow-op periods (>6 weeks; >6 weeks- ≤6 months; >6 months). METHODS: English and Dutch language articles were identified through PubMed, EMBASE.com, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2012. Articles assessing the association between pre-operative patient expectations and treatment outcomes for TKA/THA in either adjusted or unadjusted analysis were included. Two reviewers, working independently, determined eligibility, rated methodological quality and extracted data on study design, population, expectation measurements, outcome measurements and strength of the associations. Methodological quality was rated by the same reviewers on a 19 item scale. The scores on the quality assessment were taken into account when drawing final conclusions. RESULTS: The search strategy generated 2252 unique references, 18 articles met inclusion criteria. Scores on the methodological quality assessment ranged between 6% and 79%. Great variety was seen in definitions and measurement methods of expectations. No significant associations were found between patient expectations and overall improvement, satisfaction and stiffness. Both significant positive and non-significant associations were found for the association between expectations and pain and function. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistency in the association between patients' pre-operative expectations and treatment outcomes for TKA and THA indentified in this systematic review. There exists a need for a sound theoretical framework underlying the construct of 'patient expectations' and consistent use of valid measurement instruments to measure that construct in order to facilitate future research synthesis.