Supplementary searches to find additional published and unpublished studies were conducted in the Food and Drug Administration Osimertinib research buy registry (accessed 11 October 2009) and the Clinical Trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov; accessed 11 October 2009). References of the articles included in our systematic review were also manually reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed all titles and abstracts for eligibility in an unblinded and standardized manner; all disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A data

extraction form was created, pilot-tested on four eligible studies, and then refined accordingly. Data collected were study design, trial participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, study intervention including dosages and duration of follow-up, and primary/secondary outcome measurements. Data from all of the included studies SB525334 mouse were then abstracted and summarized independently by two reviewers using the data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved by repeated review and discussion between reviewers. Data in the clinical trials registry were compared with those of the published journal article when possible. We assessed the methodological quality of all articles included in our systematic review using the Risk of Bias Tool

recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [12]. The data gathered from the risk of bias assessment are presented in our systematic review to identify studies that were compromised in terms of methodological quality, but these data were not utilized in our calculations of summary effect. Each study was graded as having a low risk, high risk, or unclear risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. The summary of the differences in treatment effects between GH axis treatments and placebo is given in terms of weighted mean differences (WMDs). No qualitative measures are

included in the treatment effects reported. For nine of our ten included articles, no calculations or estimates were needed to replace data missing from the published reports. We were unable to reach Waters et al. to request additional unpublished data, and thus we estimated values of LBM based on graphs provided in their study. We used a standardized formula to calculate the standard deviations from Osimertinib cell line confidence intervals [12]. Summary treatment effects were calculated with the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager Version 5 (revman 5) using the random effects model. This model provides a conservative estimation and takes into account variance between studies in terms of quality and sample size. A test of heterogeneity was applied to the included studies to evaluate the magnitude of differences between the studies for the overall treatment effect of GH axis drugs vs. placebo, as well as for subgroup analyses for each GH axis drug vs. placebo.