MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3097113057 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138694

Extensive Variability in Platelet Count, Bleeding, and Quality of Life Outcome Measures in Adult and Pediatric Immune Thrombocytopenia: An Appraisal from a Critical Review of the Literature

2020· review· en· W3097113057 sur OpenAlexaff
Hanny Al‐Samkari, Alexandria Cronin, Donald M. Arnold, Francesco Rodeghiero, Rachael F. Grace

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMEDLINEObservational studyCritical appraisalSystematic reviewImmune thrombocytopeniaPediatricsPlatelet disorderQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePlateletPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite publication of standardized platelet count response definitions by the immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) International Working Group (IWG) in 2009, there remains considerable variability in the definition of platelet count outcomes across ITP studies. Moreover, there is no widely-accepted bleeding scale, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) inventories, or definition of remission for use in ITP patients, all critical outcome measures not addressed in the IWG Report. This heterogeneity makes comparison of response rates and outcomes between studies challenging. Therefore, to better understand current practices and inform future standardization efforts, we performed a systematic review of ITP studies to characterize how these outcomes have been measured in the decade following publication of the IWG Report. Methods: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE-indexed manuscripts published from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019 that described a platelet count, bleeding, and/or HRQoL measure in reflection of treatment response in adult and pediatric ITP. Following initial search, two authors (H.A. and R.G.) screened each abstract for inclusion, then read each included full text manuscript to collect outcome measures. Interventional studies with ≥10 patients and observational studies with ≥50 patients were included; manuscripts without abstracts and non-English language manuscripts were excluded. Results: Studies. The PubMed/MEDLINE search revealed 1562 manuscripts; following abstract screening and manuscript review, 168 manuscripts met inclusion criteria for the study. Of the 168 studies, 110 studies evaluated adults, 41 evaluated children, and 17 evaluated both adults and children; 99 were prospective (including 32 randomized trials) and 69 were retrospective observational studies. Platelet Outcomes. 141 studies (including 28 randomized trials, 53 non-randomized prospective studies and 60 retrospective observational studies) reported platelet response outcomes and 11 reported platelet count remission definitions. Of the 141 reporting response outcomes, 61 (43%) used IWG definitions and 80 (57%) did not. Of these 80 studies, there were a total of 21 distinct platelet count outcome definition schemes (Figure 1). The majority of randomized trials (22/28, 79%) and other prospective studies (37/53, 70%) did not use IWG definitions; instead, a plurality of these studies used a Plt ≥50 × 109/L to define a treatment response, without definitions for complete, partial, or minor response. Most retrospective observational studies (39/60, 65%), however, used IWG definitions. Of the 11 studies reporting remission definitions, a platelet count of ≥100 × 109/L with or without treatment over a time period of ≥6 months was the most commonly used definition of remission, although a minority of studies used thresholds of ≥50 × 109/L or ≥150 × 109/L. Bleeding Outcomes. Bleeding outcomes were reported in a systematic fashion in only a minority of studies (67/168, 36%), which used a total of 21 distinct bleeding outcome reporting schemes. A plurality of adult studies used the WHO Bleeding Scale and a plurality of pediatric studies used the Buchanan and Adix Score, Figure 2. HRQoL Outcomes. HRQoL outcomes were reported in a small minority of studies (15/168, 9%), which used a total of 8 different HRQoL instruments (6 adult instruments and 2 pediatric instruments), Table. Conclusions: Despite prior attempts to standardize evaluation of platelet response to treatment in ITP, there remains wide variability in the definition of both treatment response and remission. In particular, most prospective and randomized studies published following release of the 2009 IWG report have used study-specific platelet count response thresholds, whereas retrospective observational studies were much more likely to adopt the IWG-recommended platelet response definitions. Despite the fact that ITP is a bleeding disorder and its impact on HRQoL has been well-documented, most ITP studies published in the past decade did not evaluate bleeding in any systematic way and fewer still evaluated the impact of treatment on HRQoL. Further standardization of platelet count, bleeding, and HRQoL outcomes in both pediatric and adult ITP is greatly needed, especially for future randomized trials, to allow for more meaningful comparison of response rates and efficacy between studies. Disclosures Al-Samkari: Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Dova: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy. Arnold:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Principia: Consultancy. Grace:Novartis: Research Funding; Dova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,046
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,954
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,245

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0460,150
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,008
Bibliométrie0,0240,020
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
DomaineMéthodes
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→