Advertisement

In reply to Li et al. Letter to the editor. “Once daily (OD) versus twice-daily (BID) chemoradiation for limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC): A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.”

  • Gustavo A. Viani
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Dr.Rubem Aloysio Monteiro Street 155, Zip code-1402686, Brazil.
    Affiliations
    Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Department of Medical Imagings, Hematology and Oncology of University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

    Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Search for articles by this author
  • Andre G. Gouveia
    Affiliations
    Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Radiation Oncology Department – Americas Centro de Oncologia Integrado, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
    Search for articles by this author
  • Fabio Y. Moraes
    Affiliations
    Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Department of Oncology – Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 17, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.09.017
      We appreciate the interest by Li Zheng et al in our paper [
      • Viani G.A.
      • Gouveia A.G.
      • Matsuura F.K.
      • Jacinto A.A.
      • Moraes F.Y.
      Once daily (OD) versus twice-daily (BID) chemoradiation for limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC): a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
      ]. In their accompanying letter, several points are raised about our work, and here we are addressing all of those points. First, Li Zheng et al mentioned that “the fixed-effect was used to calculate the heterogeneity between the outcomes, and when necessary, the random effect was employed to evaluate it.” According to our and the available knowledge, this strategy is totally acceptable. Other meta-analyses, including the Cochrane or not meta-analysis, used the same approach to solve this question (i.e. Majorly, because when start a study, we usually don’t know if the outcomes will have the same direction or not) [

      Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; n.d. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook [accessed September 18, 2022].

      ,

      Frontiers | A meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of twice-daily vs. once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer based on randomized controlled trials; n.d. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2019.01460/full [accessed September 18, 2022].

      ]. Regarding the outcome for heterogeneity, a I2 = 48%, with a p-value > 0.05 (not significant), indicates acceptable heterogeneity [
      • Jakobsen J.C.
      • Wetterslev J.
      • Winkel P.
      • Lange T.
      • Gluud C.
      Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods.
      ]. We agree that the term “not significant” is lacking in the sentence. However, the sentence is completed by the p-value (which is defined when significant on the methods section), and the outcome is the same as the interpretation.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Radiotherapy and Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Viani G.A.
        • Gouveia A.G.
        • Matsuura F.K.
        • Jacinto A.A.
        • Moraes F.Y.
        Once daily (OD) versus twice-daily (BID) chemoradiation for limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC): a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
        Radiother Oncol. 2022; 173: 41-48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.032
      1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; n.d. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook [accessed September 18, 2022].

      2. Frontiers | A meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of twice-daily vs. once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer based on randomized controlled trials; n.d. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2019.01460/full [accessed September 18, 2022].

        • Jakobsen J.C.
        • Wetterslev J.
        • Winkel P.
        • Lange T.
        • Gluud C.
        Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods.
        BMC Med Res Method. 2014; 14: 120https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-120
        • Krumholz H.
        The case for duplication of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f5506https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5506
        • Moher D.
        The problem of duplicate systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f5040https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5040
        • Siontis K.C.
        • Hernandez-Boussard T.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f4501https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4501
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Kunz R.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • et al.
        GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
        • Butler E.
        • Granholm A.
        • Aneman A.
        Trustworthy systematic reviews–Can journals do more?.
        Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2019; 63: 558-559https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13330

      Linked Article