Objective To systemically review the efficacy and safety of strontium chloride for bone metastases from prostate cancer. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, VIP, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about strontium chloride for bone metastases from prostate cancer from inception to November 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 7 RCTs involving 1 532 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that strontium chloride was superior to placebo in the rate of pain relief (RR=1.79, 95%CI 1.35 to 2.37, P<0.000 1), but more likely to cause slight leucopenia (Peto OR=5.02, 95%CI 1.49 to 16.95,P=0.009). However, no significant difference was found in overall survival time between two groups (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.49). In addition, strontium chloride was superior to radiotherapy in rate of bone pain relief (RR=1.28, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.47, P=0.0004), but it would cause thrombocy (Peto OR=2.61, 95%CI 1.04 to 6.57, P=0.04). Conclusion Current evidence shows that the strontium chloride is superior to placebo in the rate of pain relief, but it will cause slight leucopenia. The strontium chloride is superior to radiotherapy in rate of bone pain relief. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
The planning and reporting of synthesis questions in systematic review of intervention have a direct and important impact on the validity of the evaluation and the credibility of the results. Planning helps to reduce bias in the evaluation process and ensure the reproducibility of data synthesis. However, the field of systematic review currently lacks specific checklists and tools to guide how to plan and report these issues. The InSynQ (Intervention Synthesis Questions) checklist is a tool designed for planning and reporting data synthesis issues in systematic reviews of interventions. Its goal is to promote the standardization of systematic review methods, support systematic review participants in planning and comprehensively reporting data synthesis issues and structures, and provide a more accurate evidence base for clinical decision-making.