| 1. |
- Horwich, A, et al.
(author)
-
EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer - an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort : under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2019
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Oxford University Press. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 30:11, s. 1697-1727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Witjes, J. Alfred, et al.
(author)
-
EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer – An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort : Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2020
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 77:2, s. 223-250
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
|
|
| 6. |
- Moschini, M, et al.
(author)
-
Open Versus Robotic Cystectomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis Comparing Survival Outcomes
- 2019
-
In: Journal of clinical medicine. - : MDPI AG. - 2077-0383. ; 8:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: To assess the differential effect of robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) on survival outcomes in matched analyses performed on a large multicentric cohort. Methods: The study included 9757 patients with urothelial bladder cancer (BCa) treated in a consecutive manner at each of 25 institutions. All patients underwent radical cystectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy. To adjust for potential selection bias, propensity score matching 2:1 was performed with two ORC patients matched to one RARC patient. The propensity-matched cohort included 1374 patients. Multivariable competing risk analyses accounting for death of other causes, tested association of surgical technique with recurrence and cancer specific mortality (CSM), before and after propensity score matching. Results: Overall, 767 (7.8%) patients underwent RARC and 8990 (92.2%) ORC. The median follow-up before and after propensity matching was 81 and 102 months, respectively. In the overall population, the 3-year recurrence rates and CSM were 37% vs. 26% and 34% vs. 24% for ORC vs. RARC (all p values > 0.1), respectively. On multivariable Cox regression analyses, RARC and ORC had similar recurrence and CSM rates before and after matching (all p values > 0.1). Conclusions: Patients treated with RARC and ORC have similar survival outcomes. This data is helpful in consulting patients until long term survival outcomes of level one evidence is available.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Aczel, Balazs, et al.
(author)
-
Consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting multi-analyst studies
- 2021
-
In: eLIFE. - : eLife Sciences Publications. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Silberzahn, Raphael, et al.
(author)
-
Many analysts, one dataset : Making transparent how variations in analytical choices affect results
- 2018
-
In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage Publications. - 2515-2459 .- 2515-2467. ; 1:3, s. 337-356
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Twenty-nine teams involving 61 analysts used the same dataset to address the same research question: whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark skin toned players than light skin toned players. Analytic approaches varied widely across teams, and estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.89 to 2.93 in odds ratio units, with a median of 1.31. Twenty teams (69%) found a statistically significant positive effect and nine teams (31%) observed a non-significant relationship. Overall 29 differentanalyses used 21 unique combinations of covariates. We found that neither analysts' prior beliefs about the effect, nor their level of expertise, nor peer-reviewed quality of analysis readily explained variation in analysis outcomes. This suggests that significant variation in the results of analyses of complex data may be difficult to avoid, even by experts with honest intentions. Crowdsourcing data analysis, a strategy by which numerous research teams are recruited to simultaneously investigate the same research question, makes transparent how defensible, yet subjective analytic choices influence research results.
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Uhlmann, Eric, L., et al.
(author)
-
Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey For Multi-Analyst Studies
- 2024
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Multi-analyst studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same data set by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g., effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a data set, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous multi-analyst study.
|
|
