Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review.

Background: Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included.

Utilising systematic reviews to assess potential overtreatment and claim for better evidence-based research: an analysis of anticancer drugs versus supportive care in advanced esophageal cancer.

Background: Highlighting the identified gaps in evidence-based research concerning advanced esophageal cancer (EC) treatment and care, this review evaluates the efficacy and safety of anticancer drugs compared to supportive care for advanced EC patients, aiming to assess the appropriateness of usual treatments and identify the gaps that need to be filled with primary research.

Methods: We searched (May 2022) MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and PROSPERO) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticancer drugs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or biological/targeted therapy) with supportive care in advanced EC.

Key factors in the choice of appropriate outcomes for clinical trials.

Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes.

Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs.