Critical appraisal:Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, Tribodet H, Stewart L, Le Pechoux C, et al 2015 1

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki
Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, Tribodet H, Stewart L, Le Pechoux C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015 Mar 2;3:CD011430 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25730344.
Assigned to
User:Shawgi.sukumaran
Topic area
Guidelines:Lung cancer/Treatment/Non-small-cell stage II operable
Clinical question
Form
Form:Critical appraisal
Study design
systematic review

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment


Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, Tribodet H, Stewart L, Le Pechoux C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015 Mar 2;3:CD011430 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25730344.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

systematic review

Study aims:

To evaluate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery alone ( with or without radiation)

Number of Patients:

8447

IPD available for 12 out of 15 trials
Reported outcome(s):

Absolute improvement in overall survival of 4% at 5 years


Includes an economic evaluation

no

Evidence ratings

Level of evidence

I

Risk of bias
Low risk of bias Comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your risk of bias rating

Risk of bias assessment: systematic review

Studies included in the review
Was an adequate search strategy used?
Very thorough – included appropriate search terms and databases
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate and applied in an unbiased way?
Yes – pre-specified inclusion criteria applied independently by two people
Were the studies assessed for quality (relating to the minimisation of biases)?
Yes – appropriate quality issues were assessed independently by two people
Were the characteristics and results of individual studies appropriately summarised?
Yes – summary descriptive tables of subjects, interventions, outcomes etc are provided and estimates of treatment effect displayed
The following questions are only relevant for systematic reviews that pooled data
Were the methods used for pooling the data appropriate?
Yes
If there was heterogeneity, were sources of heterogeneity explored?
Yes
Size of effect
1 Reason for decision: as above
Relevance of evidence
1 Additional comments: Meta- analysis of Randomized controlled studies. 12 out of 15 studies had individual patient data
Result of appraisal

Jutta's tick icon.png Included




Completed by

Dr Shawgi Sukumaran