Question · asked by 1 review

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy: Locoregional control

Population
People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials eligible where more than 50% of participants had oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer (or separate data available)
Intervention
Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost
Comparison
Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy
Outcome
Locoregional control

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy
Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and…
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes
Accelerated/boost vs conventional, locoregional control: IPD from one trial (Fu 2000); a statistically significant difference in favour of the accelerated schedule with boost was shown (Analysis 1.2). No numeric…1 studyGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy
2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
2010-07Not listedNot assessed
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.