Urinary incontinence rehabilitation of after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

The ever increasing number of alternative treatment options and the plethora of clinical trials have put systematic reviews and meta-analysis under a new perspective by emphasizing the need to make inferences about competing treatments for the same condition. The statistical component in reviews that compare multiple interventions, network meta-analysis, is the next generation evidence synthesis toolkit which, when properly applied, can serve decision-making better than the established pairwise meta-analysis. The criticism and enthusiasm for network meta-analysis echo those that greeted the advent of simple meta-analysis. The main criticism is associated with the difficulty in evaluating the assumption underlying the statistical synthesis of direct and indirect evidence. In the present article, the assumption of the network meta-analysis are presented using various formulations, the statistical and nonstatistical methodological considerations are elucidated, and the progress achieved in this field is summarized. Throughout, focus is put on highlighting the analogy between the concerns and difficulties that the scientific community had some time ago when advancing from individual trials to their quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis and those currently expressed about the transition from head-to-head meta-analyses to network meta-analysis. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.