PLoS ONE: Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies - your opinions?

Blogger's Note/Opinion: gyn cancers - this topic of discussion should be of interest: Cochrane total gyn cancers reviews = #85; empty reviews = #7; because Cochrane synthesizes and analyses systematic reviews,  often the results are inadequate (for patients/providers) in that studies included are: poor quality; lacking in data or are not randomized clinical trials; we often see this as 'further research is required'; many 'argue' that the value of systematic reviews in gyn cancers are dated (as discussed in this article) but part of this issue is the nature of, in particular, ovarian cancer research itself; the other 'issue' for this blogger is the number of systematic reviews which  continually review reviews; (re: reviews that include Cochrane systematic reviews); there needs to be a streamlining of systematic reviews (randomized clinical trial reviews) nominating or permitting one entity/conglomerate - eg. the philosophy of meaningful use, however, therein lies system wide issues within cancer; observational studies are often not included in the reviews and Cochrane is attempting to address this issue within the parameters of the purpose and philosophy of Cochrane itself, still for quality evidence Cochrane remains the leader; note also that Cochrane has always been one of, if not the leader, in including patients/consumers - your thoughts?

PLoS ONE: Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies

Introduction  

The Cochrane Library is the largest and perhaps best recognized global collection of health care evidence, currently hosting more than 4,500 systematic reviews in its Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). However, it has been reported that clinicians find Cochrane reviews of limited relevance to practice decisions. For example, one study found that while Cochrane reviews are highly regarded for their quality, they are used less than other sources for clinical decision-making because of their emphasis on methodology and rigor rather than on clinical relevance [1].

It is not Cochrane's policy to provide guidelines for practice or policy decisions [2]. Instead, it sees itself as the provider of best quality evidence and specifically states that guidelines go “beyond a systematic review and require additional information and informed judgments that are typically the domain of clinical practice guideline developers.”
Systematic reviews that find no studies eligible for inclusion, commonly known as “empty reviews,” may be especially problematic for clinicians and other decision-makers. Little is known about the incidence, prevalence or variation in reporting of such reviews [3]. The little that has been written about them suggests that the reporting of implications for practice may sustain a risk for bias. With no studies meeting criteria for inclusion, these empty reviews may appear to: (1) offer no conclusions, (2) offer conclusions based on referenced excluded studies, (3) offer conclusions based on other evidence, or (4) offer conclusions not based on evidence. Thus, empty reviews may contribute to what appears to be generalized disappointment with The CDSR among some clinicians and policymakers [1], [4]........

Conclusions

The stated purpose of Cochrane reviews is to help healthcare providers, consumers, researchers, and policy makers “make well-informed decisions about health care… by providing a reliable synthesis of the available evidence on a given topic… considering all the evidence on the effect of an intervention” [2]......

Conflicts-of-interest in drug studies sneaking back into medical journals, say investigators Jewish General/McGill - press release

Wisdom of the crowds: news consumers tired of misinterpreted observational studies - Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog

Genome.gov | 2010 Release: NIH and Wellcome Trust Announce Partnership to Support Population-based Genome Studies in Africa

Cochrane Collaboration review: Cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer

Plain language summary

Secondary surgical efforts to remove recurrent ovarian cancer in women who are no longer in remission
Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer among women. Epithelial ovarian cancer is a disease in which malignant cells form in the tissue covering the ovary. It accounts for about 90% of ovarian cancers., the remaining 10% arise from germ cells and the sex cord and stroma of the ovary. Women with epithelial ovarian cancer that has returned after primary surgery (recurrent disease) may need secondary surgery to remove all or part of the cancer. The option of surgery (debulking or cytoreductive surgery) is currently offered to a select group of women with recurrent ovarian cancer. It is important to ascertain whether this surgery helps women with recurrent disease to survive for longer than if they only got chemotherapy.

We searched for studies that compared secondary cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Although we checked 1431 possible articles, we found no relevant studies. Therefore there is currently no evidence to determine if secondary cytoreductive surgery is better or worse than chemotherapy alone in terms of prolonging life.

The review highlights the need for good quality studies comparing secondary cytoreductive surgery to chemotherapy.

Intraperitoneal VEGF Inhibition Using Bevacizumab: A Potential Approach for the Symptomatic Treatment of Malignant Ascites? -- The Oncologist

"Despite the very strong preclinical evidence for an obligatory role of VEGF in the formation of malignant ascites and for a possible therapeutic efficacy of anti-VEGF therapies in the setting of malignant effusions, there are currently no reports from clinical studies addressing this point in cancer patients..........To date, only very few patients with malignant ascites have received i.p. bevacizumab and, therefore, this route of administration as well as this particular patient population need to be examined stringently regarding the safety of the treatment. However, we believe that i.p. application might be the route of choice in this particular setting."