Addition of bevacizumab and paclitaxel as induction therapy prior to standard atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) may help to overcome vascular endothelial growth factor-associated resistance mechanisms that limit the immune-mediated antitumour efficacy of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel.

The Induction Therapy of PTX+BV Followed by Atezolizumab+Nab-PTX for PD-L1+TNBC (INDUCE) study is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two cycles of induction therapy with bevacizumab and paclitaxel followed by atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel compared with standard atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC. The primary outcome of the study is progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, V.1.1. We have estimated that 89 PFS events are needed to allow a power of 80% to detect a difference between treatment groups at a one-sided significance level of 10% in this study. The target sample size is set to 106 patients to account for dropouts.

The study protocol and informed consent form have been approved by the Certified Research Review Board at the Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan. Study results will be presented at international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

jRCTs041240039 NCT06793553.

The work of receptionists in general practice is evolving rapidly and becoming more complex due to a number of changes within primary and community care services, such as increased digitalisation. In under-served areas, these changes have been further complicated by under-resourcing and workforce challenges around staff recruitment and retention. The National Health Service (NHS) 10-year health plan is set to accelerate further significant changes. There is limited understanding about how and why these changes and workforce challenges are impacting and will impact the future work of receptionists in general practice in under-served areas.

This realist review will build on an existing programme theory related to general practitioner workforce sustainability. The review will examine what works, for whom, how and under what circumstances for receptionist work in general practice, in under-served areas. For example, how influences such as the expectations of patients (in under-served communities), poor staffing or limited career progression. Key stakeholders, including public contributors and individuals from general practice settings, will inform the realist review.

The review will be conducted using existing secondary and grey literature sources. The search strategy comprises five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE, SSCI, AHCI) with a date limit of 2015 applied to the search. The review will follow Pawson’s five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The findings will be reported in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards.

Ethical approval is not needed for secondary analysis. The findings of this review will contribute to ongoing work as part of our ‘Workforce Voices’ programme of research. They will be disseminated to policymakers, commissioners, providers of health and social care and primary care and community healthcare teams through peer-reviewed publications, members of the public, conference presentations, social media and recommendations.

This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of exercise therapy in knee osteoarthritis and summarise their reported effectiveness on quality of life, knee joint function, or adverse events.

Overview of systematic reviews.

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL (searched on 14 April 2025), plus grey literature (PROSPERO, Epistemonikos, OpenGrey).

We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis by imaging or clinical criteria and treated conservatively with exercise therapy; we excluded reviews that enrolled patients scheduled for surgery, with acute inflammation or osteoarthritis of other joints (hand, hip, ankle), for which relevant author data could not be obtained after one contact attempt, or that did not report at least one primary outcome (quality of life, knee joint function or adverse events).

Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, interventions and outcomes, and assessed methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool. Due to heterogeneity in outcome measures across systematic reviews, meta-analysis was not conducted. Effectiveness was defined as any reported beneficial outcome of exercise therapy on predefined outcomes, including quality of life, physical function, pain or adverse events.

58 systematic reviews were selected. Muscle-strengthening (74.1%) and aerobic (48.2%) exercises were the most commonly prescribed exercise-based interventions. SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Health Survey) and the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were the most popular outcome-evaluation tools. Furthermore, 63.7% of the systematic reviews revealed that exercise therapy improved all outcomes. The number of intervention-related adverse events was small. Notably, almost all systematic reviews (87.4%) had a critically low quality.

Current evidence on exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis is inadequate. Nevertheless, exercise therapy can be considered for conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Future studies should use network meta-analyses to compare the effects of different exercise therapies and determine their superiority over other conservative therapies.