Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs). To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023. RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible. Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue. A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty). The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

Ethier I ，Hayat A ，Pei J ，Hawley CM ，Johnson DW ，Francis RS ，Wong G ，Craig JC ，Viecelli AK ，Htay H ，Ng S ，Leibowitz S ，Cho Y ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Fenoldopam for preventing and treating acute kidney injury.

Fenoldopam is a short-acting benzazepine selective dopaminergic A1 (DA1) receptor agonist with increased activity at the D1 receptor compared with dopamine. Activation of the DA1 receptors increases kidney blood flow because of dilatation of the afferent and efferent arterioles. Previous reviews have been published on the efficacy and safety of fenoldopam for acute kidney injury (AKI); however, they either combined data on its effect on both prevention and treatment of AKI, focused on only those undergoing cardiac surgery and/or excluded children. This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of fenoldopam for the prevention or treatment of AKI in children and adults. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 November 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fenoldopam for the prevention or treatment of AKI in children and adults following surgery, radiocontrast exposure or sepsis. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed the studies for risk of bias and extracted data from the studies. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was used. Statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We identified 25 RCTs, including 3339 randomised participants. Twenty-three studies used fenoldopam for preventing AKI and two for the treatment of AKI. Nine studies included participants undergoing cardiac surgery, and one included children. The risks of bias for sequence generation and concealment were low in 11 and 13 studies, respectively. Only 13 and 18 studies were at low risk of performance bias and detection bias, respectively. The risk of attrition bias and selective reporting were judged to be at low risk of bias in 17 and 10 studies, respectively. We included data in the meta-analyses from eight of the 14 studies comparing fenoldopam with placebo or saline, all six studies comparing fenoldopam with dopamine, all five studies comparing fenoldopam with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for the prevention of AKI and from the two studies comparing fenoldopam with placebo or saline for the treatment of AKI. Compared with placebo or saline fenoldopam probably results in fewer participants developing AKI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.98; 8 studies, 1147 participants; I2 = 48%; moderate certainty) but may make little or no difference to the number requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.15; 7 studies, 835 participants; I2 = 17%), risk of death (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.00; 7 studies, 944 participants; I2 = 0%) or change in urine output (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.84; 2 studies, 58 participants; I2 = 34%; all low certainty). Fenoldopam may result in a shorter stay in the ICU (MD -1.81 days; 95% CI -2.41 to -1.21; 4 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 0%). It is uncertain whether adverse events (hypotension, myocardial infarction, drug intolerance, cardiac arrhythmias) differed between the treatment groups as the certainty of the evidence was very low. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, fenoldopam, compared to placebo or saline, may make little or no difference to the prevention of AKI, the need for KRT or death. Compared with dopamine, fenoldopam may make little or no difference to the prevention of AKI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.68; 4 studies, 398 participants; I2 = 78%), the number requiring KRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.87; 4 studies, 434 participants; I2 = 0%) or the risk of death (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.50; 2 studies, 174 participants; I2 = 0%) (all low certainty). It is uncertain whether participants receiving fenoldopam were more likely to develop hypotension compared with those receiving dopamine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.06 to 8.52; 1 study, 80 participants; very low certainty). Change in urine output was not reported. It is uncertain whether fenoldopam compared with NAC prevents AKI (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.56; 3 studies, 359 participants; I2 = 38%), reduces the need for KRT (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.26; 2 studies, 137 participants; I2 = 0%), or the risk of death (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.66; 1 study, 39 participants) (all very low certainty). It is uncertain whether hypotension was more frequent with fenoldopam (RR 5.10, 95% CI 0.25, 104.94; 1 study, 192 participants; very low certainty). Change in urine output was not reported. In participants with established AKI, it is uncertain whether fenoldopam compared to placebo or half saline reduces the numbers needing KRT (RR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 58%; very low certainty) or the risk of death (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.48; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 66%; very low certainty), or if it increases the risk of hypotension (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.22; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). Fenoldopam administration in patients at risk of AKI is probably associated with a lower risk of developing AKI and shorter ICU stay when compared with placebo or saline, but has little or no effect on the need for KRT or the risk of death. In those undergoing cardiac surgery, fenoldopam may not confer any benefits compared with placebo or saline. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether fenoldopam is more or less effective than either dopamine or NAC in reducing the risk for AKI or the need for KRT. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenoldopam in preventing or treating AKI.

Esezobor CI ，Bhatt GC ，Effa EE ，Hodson EM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis.

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants). To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy. Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Tunnicliffe DJ ，Palmer SC ，Cashmore BA ，Saglimbene VM ，Krishnasamy R ，Lambert K ，Johnson DW ，Craig JC ，Strippoli GF ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions to prevent surgical site infection in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of hospital-acquired infection and affects up to a third of patients following surgical procedures. It is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. In the United Kingdom alone, it is estimated to add another £30 million to the cost of adult cardiac surgery. Although generic guidance for SSI prevention exists, this is not specific to adult cardiac surgery. Furthermore, many of the risk factors for SSI are prevalent within the cardiac surgery population. Despite this, there is currently no standard of care for SSI prevention in adults undergoing cardiac surgery throughout the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods of care, with variations in practice existing throughout from risk stratification, decontamination strategies and surveillance. Primary objective: to assess the clinical effectiveness of pre-, intra-, and postoperative interventions in the prevention of cardiac SSI. (i) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention interventions on morbidity, mortality, and resource use; (ii) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention care bundles on morbidity, mortality, and resource use. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, from inception) and Embase (Ovid, from inception) on 31 May 2021. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were also searched for ongoing or unpublished trials on 21 May 2021. No language restrictions were imposed. We included RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce SSI in adults (≥ 18 years of age) who have undergone any cardiac surgery. We followed the methods as per our published Cochrane protocol. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for SSI, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions for SSI, healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QoL), and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. A total of 118 studies involving 51,854 participants were included. Twenty-two interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery were identified. The risk of bias was judged to be high in the majority of studies. There was heterogeneity in the study populations and interventions; consequently, meta-analysis was not appropriate for many of the comparisons and these are presented as narrative summaries. We focused our reporting of findings on four comparisons deemed to be of great clinical relevance by all review authors. Decolonisation versus no decolonisation Pooled data from three studies (n = 1564) using preoperative topical oral/nasal decontamination in all patients demonstrated an uncertain direction of treatment effect in relation to total SSI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study reported that decolonisation likely results in little to no difference in superficial SSI (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence) and a reduction in deep SSI (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). The evidence on all-cause mortality from three studies (n = 1564) is very uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.84; I2 = 49%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) demonstrated that decolonisation may result in little to no difference in hospital readmission for SSI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) reported one case of temporary discolouration of teeth in the decolonisation arm (low-certainty-evidence. Reoperation for SSI was not reported. Tight glucose control versus standard glucose control Pooled data from seven studies (n = 880) showed that tight glucose control may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85; I2 = 29%; numbers need to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 13; very-low certainty evidence). Pooled data from seven studies (n = 3334) showed tight glucose control may reduce all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Based on four studies (n = 2793), there may be little to no difference in episodes of hypoglycaemia between tight control vs. standard control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.76; I2 = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, reoperation for SSI, or hospital readmission for SSI. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard dressings NPWT was assessed in two studies (n = 144) and it may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 80) reported reoperation for SSI. The relative effect could not be estimated. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, all-cause mortality, hospital readmission for SSI, or adverse effects. Topical antimicrobials versus no topical antimicrobials Five studies (n = 5382) evaluated topical gentamicin sponge, which may reduce total SSI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84; I2 = 48%; NNTB = 32), superficial SSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; I2 = 69%), and deep SSI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 4662) demonstrated that topical gentamicin sponge may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Reoperation for SSI, hospital readmission for SSI, and adverse effects were not reported in any included studies. This review provides the broadest and most recent review of the current evidence base for interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Twenty-one interventions were identified across the perioperative period. Evidence is of low to very low certainty primarily due to significant heterogeneity in how interventions were implemented and the definitions of SSI used. Knowledge gaps have been identified across a number of practices that should represent key areas for future research. Efforts to standardise SSI outcome reporting are warranted.

Cardiothoracic Interdisciplinary Research Network ，Rogers LJ ，Vaja R ，Bleetman D ，Ali JM ，Rochon M ，Sanders J ，Tanner J ，Lamagni TL ，Talukder S ，Quijano-Campos JC ，Lai F ，Loubani M ，Murphy GJ ... -  《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》