Table 1 Example of abstract construction

TITLE: Comparative effectiveness of intervention A and comparator B for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma.

TITLE: Comparative effectiveness of intervention A and comparator B for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intervention A is a standard treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC), though comparator B is frequently substituted due to improved tolerability. Because comparative effectiveness in clinical outcomes of intervention A - versus comparator B chemotherapy is lacking, a meta-analysis was carried out.

BACKGROUND: Intervention A is a standard treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC), though comparator B is frequently substituted due to improved tolerability. Because comparative effectiveness in clinical outcomes of intervention A - versus comparator B chemotherapy is lacking, a meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published from 1966 to 2010. Eligible studies included prospective randomized trials evaluating intervention A - versus comparator B regimens in patients with metastatic UC. Individual patient data were not available and survival data were inconsistently reported. Therefore, the analysis focused on overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used for combining trials and calculating pooled risk ratios (RRs).

METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published from 1966 to 2010. Eligible studies included prospective randomized trials evaluating intervention A - versus comparator B regimens in patients with metastatic UC. Individual patient data were not available and survival data were inconsistently reported. Therefore, the analysis focused on overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used for combining trials and calculating pooled risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS: A total of 286 patients with metastatic UC from four randomized trials were included. Intervention A was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving a CR [RR =3.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-8.49; P =0.005] and OR (RR =1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.71; P =0.02). Survival end points could not be adequately assessed due to inconsistent reporting among trials.

RESULTS: A total of 286 patients with metastatic UC from four randomized trials were included. Intervention A was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving a CR [RR =3.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-8.49; P =0.005] and OR (RR =1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.71; P =0.02). Survival end points could not be adequately assessed due to inconsistent reporting among trials.

CONCLUSIONS: Intervention A, as compared with comparator B, significantly increases the likelihood of both OR and CR in patients with metastatic UC. The impact of improved response proportions on survival end points could not be assessed.

LIMITATIONS: This review is limited by the small sample sizes and methodological quality of the included studies. None of the included studies was blinded or placebo controlled; two studies closed early.

Conclusions: Intervention A, as compared with comparator B, significantly increases the likelihood of both OR and CR in patients with metastatic UC. The impact of improved response proportions on survival end points could not be assessed.