ArticleHeliyon2024
Evaluation of ocular and systemic endpoints after radiation of posterior uveal melanoma - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the large number of radiotherapeutic options for treatment of posterior uveal melanoma (UM), advantages of each option regarding important clinical endpoints have yet to be determined. Therefore, objective of this systematic review was to analyze the numerous pro- and retrospective cohort studies focusing on the efficacy of different radiotherapeutic options for UM in adults, considering local tumor control, overall survival, visual acuity, eye preservation, metastasis, radiation side effects and dose rates. Methods: The Review was performed based on the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. The PubMed database was searched for studies published from January 1st, 2000, up to December 31st, 2021. Research, study selection and critical appraisal was performed by two reviewers. The risk of bias assessment was performed through the revised Cochrane risk of bias tools RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using R (R version 4.1.3, library: meta, procedure: metaprop). This systematic review was registered with Prospero (ID CRD42022311758). Results: Of 4886 studies identified in the database, a total of 20 studies with 4979 participants were included in the qualitative synthesis. Through critical appraisal with ROBINS-I and RoB 2, studies received a 'moderate', 'serious' or 'some concerns' overall risk of bias. Heterogeneity analysis allowed for meta-analysis of proportion of 3 outcome-therapy combinations: local tumor control with I-125 Brachytherapy (proportion: 0.94, CI 95 %: 0.91-0.98), local tumor control with proton therapy (proportion: 0.96, CI 95 %: 0.92-1.00) and eye preservation with I-125 brachytherapy (proportion: 0.91, CI 95 %: 0.88-0.93). This shows local tumor control to be at 94 % with I-125 brachytherapy and at 96 % with proton therapy, as well as an eye preservation rate of 91 % with I-125 brachytherapy. Discussion: The evaluation of outcomes of radiotherapy in UM is limited because of missing data on radiation doses as well as great heterogeneity of study protocols. Radiation therapy outcomes are so far not comparable. Therefore, we recommend for upcoming studies on this topic to provide the biological effective dose (BED) or the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.