Abstract
The editorial comment for our published article titled “Efficacy of Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy vs Conventional Continuous Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis” discussed several important methodological features of meta-analyses. We would like to respond to comments regarding (1) quality assessment of primary studies, (2) publication bias detection using funnel plots or Egger's test, (3) heterogeneity reduction using meta-regression analysis, and (4) interpretations of study findings. Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 82Issue 2PreviewThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, comparing the efficacy of intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IADT) vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy for patients with advanced prostate cancer. They pooled data from 8 trials (including over 4600 men), in which participants were randomized to IADT or continuous androgen deprivation therapy. Results of their meta-analysis suggest that the use of IADT does not significantly increase the risk of cancer-specific or overall mortality, but it significantly reduces a man's risk of hot flashes. Full-Text PDF
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
