Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

Santero, M.; Pérez-Bracchiglione, J.; Acosta-Dighero, R.; Meade, A. G.; Antequera, A.; Auladell-Rispau, A.; Quintana, M. J.; Requeijo, C.; Rodríguez-Grijalva, G.; Salas-Gama, K.; Dorantes-Romandia, R.; Salazar, J.; Solà, I.; Urrútia, G.; Bonfill Cosp, X.

doi:10.1186/s12885-021-08330-5

Table 2 AMSTAR-2 Systematic Reviews

From: Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

	Iacovelli 2014 [23]	TerVeer 2016 [24]	Wang 2016 [25]	Chan 2017a [26]	Chan 2017b [27]	Harvey 2017 [28]	Janmaat 2017 [15]	Wagner 2017 [29]	Wang 2017 [30]	Xie 2017 [31]	Zhu 2017 [32]	Liu 2018 [33]	Zhao 2018 [34]	Chen 2019 [35]	van Kleef 2019 [36]	Wallis 2019 [37]
1.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
2.	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
3.	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
4.	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	No	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes
5.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
6.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
7.	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
8.	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Partial Yes	No	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes
9a.	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
9b.	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	Yes	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs	No	Includes only RCTs	Includes only RCTs
10.	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes
11a.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No meta-analysis conducted	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
11b.	Yes	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	Yes	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	Yes	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted	No meta-analysis conducted
12.	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
13.	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
14.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
15.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
16.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
QUALITY OF THE REVIEW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	HIGH	CRITICALLY LOW	LOW	LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW	CRITICALLY LOW
Number of critical flaws	6	5	2	3	0	6	1	1	2	8	2	3	5	5	6	6
Number of non-critical flaws	4	3	1	3	1	6	1	1	3	6	1	3	6	5	6	3

1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9a. RCT: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 9b. NSRI: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11a. RCT: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 11b. NSRI: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccancer@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Cancer

Contact us