MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413641551 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106582

Comparing treatment strategies for placental site trophoblastic tumour (PSTT): study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4413641551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianbin Ma, Yixiao Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisObservational studySystematic reviewPublication biasMEDLINECochrane LibraryInternal medicineOncologyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Placental site trophoblastic tumour (PSTT) is a rare type of gestational trophoblastic malignancy. Despite different guidelines recommending surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy, there has been no optimal first-line treatment owing to its rarity. Direct comparisons of efficacy and safety across interventions remain limited. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to explore each PSTT treatment and to help develop individualised, evidence-based clinical decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review, registered on PROSPERO and adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P 2015 guidelines, will evaluate all available treatments for PSTT. Databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science) will be searched from inception to 31 May 2025 using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords related to PSTT. The inclusion criteria will be studies reporting confirmed PSTT patients and treatment outcomes; the exclusion criteria will be non-human studies, abstracts and reviews. Two researchers will independently screen studies, resolving discrepancies via discussion or a third reviewer. Manual reference checks will complement searches. Data on study characteristics, interventions (chemotherapy, surgery or other treatments) and outcomes (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, adverse events, fertility) will be extracted. The primary outcome will be the OS. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies and V.2 Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB 2) for randomised controlled trials. Statistical analyses will be conducted via Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 16.0. The ORs, along with 95% CIs will be calculated with random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity between studies. The sensitivity analyses and publication bias (funnel plots, Begg's/Egger's tests) will be assessed if indicated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study analyses previously published data, no additional ethical approval is required, nor will patient safety be compromised. The collected results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal following PRISMA-NMA guidelines. No datasets will be generated or analysed during the current study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251013082.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207