(no title)
Gatsky | 2 years ago
"A targeted electronic literature search was conducted to identify any additional phase III randomized controlled trials in this patient population. No additional randomized controlled trials were identified. The original guideline Expert Panels reconvened to review evidence from EMERALD and to review and approve the revised recommendations."
Where is the meta-analysis? Where is the funnel plot? What are you even arguing about? They issued an update because of one trial.
Here is another one from June 2022, a major change to how one type of breast cancer is managed, in the methods:
"A targeted electronic literature search was conducted to identify phase III clinical trials pertaining to the recommendation on immune checkpoint inhibitors in this patient population. No additional randomized trials were identified. The original Expert Panel was reconvened to review the key evidence from KEYNOTE-522 and to review and approve the revision to the recommendation."
Where is the meta-analysis? Again, what are you trying to argue? They issued an update because of one trial.
There are two updates this year, one about HER2 testing, and one about ESR1.
haldujai|2 years ago
The criteria for a rapid update is listed in the comment you replied to, I have no misunderstanding of why they publish them but you are trying to misrepresent this as deviating from EBM.
Your words were: “Unfortunately the dogma around systematic reviews and EBM has exceeded its usefulness by quite some margin.”
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but seeing as you’re attempting to argue ASCO’s own position and methodology with anecdotes and conjecture based on one specific area of breast cancer treatment and extrapolating to the entire field of oncology I’m not sure there’s a point in engaging further.
You can refer to the full ASCO statement I linked which discusses meta-analyses for their arguments.
Cheers.