Moxibustion for alleviating side effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in people with cancer.

Zhang HW ，Lin ZX ，Cheung F ，Cho WC ，Tang JL ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015. We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions. We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement. We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.

Lawford BJ ，Hall M ，Hinman RS ，Van der Esch M ，Harmer AR ，Spiers L ，Kimp A ，Dell'Isola A ，Bennell KL ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Tamoxifen for adults with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Tamoxifen has been evaluated in randomised clinical trials in people with hepatocellular cancer. The reported results have been inconsistent. To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment. We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024. Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis. Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years. Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials. Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014869.

Naing C ，Ni H ，Aung HH 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》