Abstract: Four studies involving 1265 women met the inclusion criteria. In our meta-analysis to compare HDR and LDR ICBT, the pooled risk ratios (RRs) were 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.15), 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.04) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.20) for 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates respectively; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.07) and 1.02 (0.88 to 1.19) for 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates respectively. The RR for RFS was 1.04 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.52) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) at 3- and 5- years. For local control rates the RR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.05) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.05) at 3- and 5- years; with a RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.43) for locoregional recurrence, 0.79 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.53) for local and distant recurrence, 2.23 (95% CI 0.78 to 6.34) for para-aortic lymph node metastasis, and 0.99 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.35) for distance metastasis. For bladder, rectosigmoid and small bowel complications, the RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.34), 1.00 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.91) and 3.37 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.72) respectively. These results indicated that there were no significant differences except for increased small bowel complications with HDRs (P = 0.04). Since the last version of this review, no new studies were identified for inclusion in this review to provide additional information. This review showed no significant differences between HDR and LDR ICBT when considering OS, DSS, RFS, local control rate, recurrence, metastasis and treatment related complications for women with cervical carcinoma. Due to some potential advantages of HDR ICBT (rigid immobilization, outpatient treatment, patient convenience, accuracy of source and applicator positioning, individualized treatment) we recommend the use of HDR ICBT for all clinical stages of cervix cancer. The overall risk of bias was high for the included studies as many of the items were either of high or unclear risk. The GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence was low to moderate.

Plain-language summary: Four studies involving 1265 women were included in our meta-analysis to compare HDR and LDR ICBT. The pooled results indicated there were no significant difference with regard to 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates; 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival rates; 3- and 5-year relapse-free survival; 3- and 5-year local control rates; and local and distant recurrence. Only in respect to complications did HDR ICBTshow mildly increased numbers of small bowel complications. These results confirmed that there were no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of HDR versus LDR ICBT for women with locally advanced uterine cervical cancer. We included three randomised controlled trials and one quasi-randomised controlled trial. The way that randomisation was carried out was described in only two trials but they did not give details regarding allocation concealment and blinding. However, all trials had a low risk bias for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). The different methodological approaches used in the trials prevented any clear conclusion being reached regarding the quality of the evidence. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was low to moderate.