Evidence map of pancreatic surgery: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology

Background

Knowledge of current and ongoing studies is critical for identifying research gaps and enabling evidence-based decisions for individualized treatment. However, the increasing number of scientific publications poses challenges for healthcare providers and patients in all medical fields to stay updated with the latest evidence. To overcome these barriers, we aim to develop a living systematic review and open-access online evidence map of surgical therapy for bladder cancer (BC), including meta-analyses.

Methods

Following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement, a systematic literature search on uro-oncological therapy in BC will be performed across various literature databases. Within the scope of a meta-analysis and living systematic review, relevant randomized controlled trials will be identified. Data extraction and quantitative analysis will be conducted, along with a critical appraisal of the quality and risk of bias of each study. The available research evidence will be entered into an open-access framework (www.evidencemap.surgery) and will also be accessible via the EVIglance app. Regular semi-automatic updates will enable the implementation of a real-living review concept and facilitate resource-efficient screening.

Discussion

A regularly updated evidence map provides professionals and patients with an open-access knowledge base on the current state of research, allowing for decision-making based on recent evidence. It will help identify an oversupply of evidence, thus avoiding redundant work. Furthermore, by identifying research gaps, new hypotheses can be formulated more precisely, enabling planning, determination of sample size, and definition of endpoints for future trials.

A Simple Classification of Pancreatic Duct Size and Texture Predicts Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A classification of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a classification system for pancreas-associated risk factors in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most relevant PD-associated complication. A simple standardized surgical reporting system based on pancreas-associated risk factors is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies investigating clinically relevant (CR) POPF (CR-POPF) and pancreas-associated risk factors after PD. A meta-analysis of CR-POPF rate for texture of the pancreas (soft vs not-soft) and main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Based on the results, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) proposes the following classification: A, not-soft (hard) texture and MPD >3 mm; B, not-soft (hard) texture and MPD ≤3 mm; C, soft texture and MPD >3 mm; D, soft texture and MPD ≤3 mm. The classification was evaluated in a multi-institutional, international cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 2917 articles identified, 108 studies were included in the analyses. Soft pancreatic texture was significantly associated with the development of CR-POPF [odds ratio (OR) 4.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67-4.89, P < 0.01) following PD. Similarly, MPD diameter ≤3 mm significantly increased CR-POPF risk compared with >3 mm diameter MPDs (OR 3.66, 95% CI 2.62-5.12, P < 0.01). The proposed 4-stage system was confirmed in an independent cohort of 5533 patients with CR-POPF rates of 3.5%, 6.2%, 16.6%, and 23.2% for type A-D, respectively ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For future pancreatic surgical outcomes studies, the ISGPS recommends reporting these risk factors according to the proposed classification system for better comparability of results.

Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare

Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.

Current status and perspectives of the future of pancreatic surgery: Establishment of evidence by integration of "art" and "science"

Pancreatic cancer surgery continues to be associated with a high operative morbidity rate, poor long-term survival outcomes, and various challenges in obtaining high-level evidence. Not only is the early postoperative morbidity rate high, but also late morbidity involves lifelong nutritional support for long-term survivors. Due to poor survival outcomes even after curative surgery, pancreatic surgeons have doubts about the role of surgery as the definitive treatment for pancreatic cancer. Additionally, conducting clinical trials to obtain high-level evidence in the field of pancreatic surgery is difficult, and the results have only had a moderate impact on clinical practice due to skepticism regarding their quality. Therefore, quality evidence regarding the extent of resection, mode of approach to dissection, reconstruction methods for pancreatico-enteric anastomosis, determination of resectability, timing of surgery, and the definition of the resection margin is lacking. However, numerous innovative pancreatic surgical procedures have been developed, which may aptly have been called "art" when they were first introduced, regardless of whether they subsequently were supported by scientific evidence. In this review, we provide recent examples of the integration of art and science in the field of pancreatic surgery, which illustrate how the creative ideas of pancreatic surgeons evolved into generally accepted clinical practice. Pancreatic surgeons should be considered "surgical artists," "surgical scientists," and "surgical practitioners." We look forward to more "surgical artists" educating future "surgical artists and scientists" to create a richer "spirit of innovation," leading to a more beautiful integration of art and science in the field of pancreatic surgery.

Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery-A living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates.

RESULTS

Out of 30,860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35,600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%-2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%-1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%-61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%-80%) for distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.