Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Использование эритропоэтинов в онкологии
Использование эритропоэтинов в онкологии
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
В редакционной статье представлены сведения о проблеме использования эритропоэтинов при анемии у онкологических пациентов в увязке с результатами Кокрейновских систематических обзоров – «золотого стандарта» качества доказательной медицинской информации.
Ключевые слова: эритропоэтин, дарбэпоэтин, злокачественные новообразования, Кокрейн, Кокрейн Россия, Кокрейновская библиотека, анемия, безопасность
Keywords: erythropoietin, darbepoietin, malignant neoplasms, Cochrane, Cochrane Russia, Cochrane Library, anemia, safety
Ключевые слова: эритропоэтин, дарбэпоэтин, злокачественные новообразования, Кокрейн, Кокрейн Россия, Кокрейновская библиотека, анемия, безопасность
________________________________________________
Keywords: erythropoietin, darbepoietin, malignant neoplasms, Cochrane, Cochrane Russia, Cochrane Library, anemia, safety
Полный текст
Список литературы
1. Cochrane Cochrane. The difference we make. Archie Cochrane. Russian. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/ru/about-us/difference-we-make. Accessed: 15.05.2021.
2. Cochrane. About us. Russian. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/ru/about-us. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
4. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste fr om incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76.
6. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167-71.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021
7. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;129:158-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019
8. Lund H, Juhl C. Doing meaningful systematic reviews is no gravy train. Lancet. 2020;395(10241):1905.
9. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.
10. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144980.
11. Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Michelaki I, Pandis N. Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics. J Dent. 2018;74:90-4.
12. Knight K, Wade S, Balducci L. Prevalence and outcomes of anemia in cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Med. 2004;116 (Suppl. 7A):11S-26S.
13. Desborough M, Estcourt LJ, Doree C, et al. Alternatives, and adjuncts, to prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD010982.
14. Borkent-Raven BA, Janssen MP, Van Der Poel CL. Demographic changes and predicting blood supply and demand in the Netherlands. Transfusion. 2010;50(11):2455-60.
15. Tinegate H, Pendry K, Murphy M, et al. Wh ere do all the red blood cells (RBCs) go? Results of a survey of RBC use in England and North Wales in 2014. Transfusion. 2016;56(1):139-45.
16. Whitaker B, Rajbhandary S, Kleinman S, et al. Trends in United States blood collection and transfusion: results from the 2013 AABB Blood Collection, Utilization, and Patient Blood Management Survey. Transfusion. 2016;56(9):2173-83.
17. WHO Blood safety and availability. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
18. Bolton-Maggs PHB. Conference report: International Haemovigilance Seminar and the SHOT Annual Symposium, 10–12 July 2018. Transfus Med. 2019;29(4):247-52.
19. Bolton-Maggs PH. Conference report: the 2015 SHOT symposium and report – what's new? Transfus Med. 2015;25(5):295-8.
20. Bolton-Maggs PH, Cohen H. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(3):303-14.
2. Cochrane. About us. Russian. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/ru/about-us. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
4. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste fr om incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76.
6. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167-71.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021
7. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;129:158-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019
8. Lund H, Juhl C. Doing meaningful systematic reviews is no gravy train. Lancet. 2020;395(10241):1905.
9. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.
10. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144980.
11. Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Michelaki I, Pandis N. Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics. J Dent. 2018;74:90-4.
12. Knight K, Wade S, Balducci L. Prevalence and outcomes of anemia in cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Med. 2004;116 (Suppl. 7A):11S-26S.
13. Desborough M, Estcourt LJ, Doree C, et al. Alternatives, and adjuncts, to prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD010982.
14. Borkent-Raven BA, Janssen MP, Van Der Poel CL. Demographic changes and predicting blood supply and demand in the Netherlands. Transfusion. 2010;50(11):2455-60.
15. Tinegate H, Pendry K, Murphy M, et al. Wh ere do all the red blood cells (RBCs) go? Results of a survey of RBC use in England and North Wales in 2014. Transfusion. 2016;56(1):139-45.
16. Whitaker B, Rajbhandary S, Kleinman S, et al. Trends in United States blood collection and transfusion: results from the 2013 AABB Blood Collection, Utilization, and Patient Blood Management Survey. Transfusion. 2016;56(9):2173-83.
17. WHO Blood safety and availability. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
18. Bolton-Maggs PHB. Conference report: International Haemovigilance Seminar and the SHOT Annual Symposium, 10–12 July 2018. Transfus Med. 2019;29(4):247-52.
19. Bolton-Maggs PH. Conference report: the 2015 SHOT symposium and report – what's new? Transfus Med. 2015;25(5):295-8.
20. Bolton-Maggs PH, Cohen H. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(3):303-14.
2. Cochrane. About us. Russian. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/ru/about-us. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
4. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste fr om incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76.
6. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167-71.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021
7. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;129:158-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019
8. Lund H, Juhl C. Doing meaningful systematic reviews is no gravy train. Lancet. 2020;395(10241):1905.
9. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.
10. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144980.
11. Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Michelaki I, Pandis N. Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics. J Dent. 2018;74:90-4.
12. Knight K, Wade S, Balducci L. Prevalence and outcomes of anemia in cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Med. 2004;116 (Suppl. 7A):11S-26S.
13. Desborough M, Estcourt LJ, Doree C, et al. Alternatives, and adjuncts, to prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD010982.
14. Borkent-Raven BA, Janssen MP, Van Der Poel CL. Demographic changes and predicting blood supply and demand in the Netherlands. Transfusion. 2010;50(11):2455-60.
15. Tinegate H, Pendry K, Murphy M, et al. Wh ere do all the red blood cells (RBCs) go? Results of a survey of RBC use in England and North Wales in 2014. Transfusion. 2016;56(1):139-45.
16. Whitaker B, Rajbhandary S, Kleinman S, et al. Trends in United States blood collection and transfusion: results from the 2013 AABB Blood Collection, Utilization, and Patient Blood Management Survey. Transfusion. 2016;56(9):2173-83.
17. WHO Blood safety and availability. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
18. Bolton-Maggs PHB. Conference report: International Haemovigilance Seminar and the SHOT Annual Symposium, 10–12 July 2018. Transfus Med. 2019;29(4):247-52.
19. Bolton-Maggs PH. Conference report: the 2015 SHOT symposium and report – what's new? Transfus Med. 2015;25(5):295-8.
20. Bolton-Maggs PH, Cohen H. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(3):303-14.
________________________________________________
2. Cochrane. About us. Russian. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/ru/about-us. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
4. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste fr om incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76.
6. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167-71.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021
7. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;129:158-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019
8. Lund H, Juhl C. Doing meaningful systematic reviews is no gravy train. Lancet. 2020;395(10241):1905.
9. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.
10. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144980.
11. Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Michelaki I, Pandis N. Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics. J Dent. 2018;74:90-4.
12. Knight K, Wade S, Balducci L. Prevalence and outcomes of anemia in cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Med. 2004;116 (Suppl. 7A):11S-26S.
13. Desborough M, Estcourt LJ, Doree C, et al. Alternatives, and adjuncts, to prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD010982.
14. Borkent-Raven BA, Janssen MP, Van Der Poel CL. Demographic changes and predicting blood supply and demand in the Netherlands. Transfusion. 2010;50(11):2455-60.
15. Tinegate H, Pendry K, Murphy M, et al. Wh ere do all the red blood cells (RBCs) go? Results of a survey of RBC use in England and North Wales in 2014. Transfusion. 2016;56(1):139-45.
16. Whitaker B, Rajbhandary S, Kleinman S, et al. Trends in United States blood collection and transfusion: results from the 2013 AABB Blood Collection, Utilization, and Patient Blood Management Survey. Transfusion. 2016;56(9):2173-83.
17. WHO Blood safety and availability. Using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability. Accessed: 11.07.2021.
18. Bolton-Maggs PHB. Conference report: International Haemovigilance Seminar and the SHOT Annual Symposium, 10–12 July 2018. Transfus Med. 2019;29(4):247-52.
19. Bolton-Maggs PH. Conference report: the 2015 SHOT symposium and report – what's new? Transfus Med. 2015;25(5):295-8.
20. Bolton-Maggs PH, Cohen H. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(3):303-14.
Авторы
Л.Е. Зиганшина*, И.В. Поддубная, Д.А. Сычев
ФГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия непрерывного профессионального образования» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
ФГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия непрерывного профессионального образования» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
________________________________________________
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.