Altered fraction schedules vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy: Late gastrointestinal RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC
It is very uncertain whether altered fraction schedules changes late gastrointestinal RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC compared with conventional fractionation (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation Late gastrointestinal RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC · clinically localized prostate cancer It is very uncertain whether altered fraction schedules changes late gastrointestinal RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC compared with conventional fractionation (very low certainty). Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.1 [0.68, 1.78] | 4 studies · 3843 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer 2019 · 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.