RESUMO
Background: Knowledge of current and ongoing studies is critical for identifying research gaps and enabling evidence-based decisions for individualized treatment. However, the increasing number of scientific publications poses challenges for healthcare providers and patients in all medical fields to stay updated with the latest evidence. To overcome these barriers, we aim to develop a living systematic review and open-access online evidence map of surgical therapy for bladder cancer (BC), including meta-analyses. Methods: Following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement, a systematic literature search on uro-oncological therapy in BC will be performed across various literature databases. Within the scope of a meta-analysis and living systematic review, relevant randomized controlled trials will be identified. Data extraction and quantitative analysis will be conducted, along with a critical appraisal of the quality and risk of bias of each study. The available research evidence will be entered into an open-access framework (www.evidencemap.surgery) and will also be accessible via the EVIglance app. Regular semi-automatic updates will enable the implementation of a real-living review concept and facilitate resource-efficient screening. Discussion: A regularly updated evidence map provides professionals and patients with an open-access knowledge base on the current state of research, allowing for decision-making based on recent evidence. It will help identify an oversupply of evidence, thus avoiding redundant work. Furthermore, by identifying research gaps, new hypotheses can be formulated more precisely, enabling planning, determination of sample size, and definition of endpoints for future trials.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the three approaches of radical cystectomy (robotic assisted [RARC], laparoscopic [LRC], and open [ORC]) have been published recently. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs comparing RARC, LRC, and ORC, with the primary outcomes being overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (last search: 20/05/2022) was performed. The prospectively registered protocol stated that a NMA of the primary outcomes would be performed only if there was sufficient evidence to compare all three approaches. In case of insufficient evidence, a comparison between the two most common approaches would be performed. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was assessed for direct evidence and the most common comparison. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten trials were identified. There was insufficient evidence for a NMA of all approaches for the primary outcomes. The meta-analysis of RARC and ORC showed no differences in OS (hazard ratio (HR) [confidence interval (CI): 0.98 [0.73-1.30]) and RFS (HR [CI]: 0.99 [0.75-1.31]) with moderate CoE. The secondary outcomes showed lower rates of transfusions (p < 0.01) and longer operating time (p < 0.01) with high CoE for RARC compared with ORC. There were no differences for quality of life, positive margins, length of hospital stay, or major complications (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There are no differences in OS and RFS between RARC and ORC, with moderate CoE. Clinicians should likely apply the approach with which they can reach the highest case volume and in which they have the most experience. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the difference between three types (robotic assisted, laparoscopic, and open) of operating techniques for radical cystectomy. The data showed no significant differences in OS between the robotic-assisted and the open technique, while enough data were not available to make a comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery.
