Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet: QoL
Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in QOL scores (IBDQ) (higher scores better) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: Diet interventions vs usual on‐treatment diet QOL scores (IBDQ) (higher scores better) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in QOL scores (IBDQ) (higher scores better) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty). Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 4.6 | 1 study · 50 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: Diet interventions vs usual on‐treatment diet QOL scores (QLQ‐PR25) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 119 participants | GRADE not reported |
Summary of findings: Diet interventions vs usual on‐treatment diet QOL scores (IBDQ) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in QOL scores (IBDQ) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty). Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 2.4 | 1 study · 76 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.