Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 18;27(2):9-15.
doi: 10.1097/SP9.0000000000000008. eCollection 2023 Oct.

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

Victoria L S Wieland  1 , Daniel Uysal  1 , Pascal Probst  2 , Maurizio Grilli  3 , Caelán M Haney  4 , Marie A Sidoti Abate  1 , Luisa Egen  1 , Manuel Neuberger  1 , Giovanni E Cacciamani  5   6 , Maximilian C Kriegmair  7 , Maurice S Michel  1 , Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski  1
Affiliations

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

Victoria L S Wieland et al. Int J Surg Protoc. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: bladder cancer; evidence-based medicine; living evidence; living systematic reviews; meta-analysis; urologic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Exemplary representation of the possible structure of the evidence map. ERAS, enhanced recovery after surgery; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Long-term strategy and estimated hits for bladder cancer exemplary.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liem EIML, de Reijke TM. Can we improve transurethral resection of the bladder tumour for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer? Curr Opin Urol 2017;27:149–155. - PubMed
    1. Babaevskaya D, Bazarkin A, Taratkin M, et al. Recent advances in transurethral resection of bladder tumors. Urol Herald 2022;10:96–103.
    1. Pennell C, Hirst A, Campbell W, et al. Practical guide to the Idea, Development and Exploration stages of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. J Br Surg 2016;103:607–615. - PubMed
    1. Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 2019;269:211–220. - PubMed
    1. Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T, et al. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction – the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;91:23–30. - PubMed