共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Background
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Methods/Principal Findings
We selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI −8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.Conclusion/Significance
Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity. 相似文献2.
Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M. Farquhar 《PloS one》2012,7(12)
Background
Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.Methods and Findings
We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.Conclusion
R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness. 相似文献3.
Objective
Systematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.Methods
Criteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.Results
The 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.Conclusions
The methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs. 相似文献4.
Kun Hyung Kim Jae Cheol Kong Jun-Yong Choi Tae-Young Choi Byung-Cheul Shin Steve McDonald Myeong Soo Lee 《PloS one》2012,7(10)
Objective
Acupuncture is commonly practiced in Korea and is regularly evaluated in clinical trials. Although many Cochrane reviews of acupuncture include searches of both English and Chinese databases, there is no information on the value of searching Korean databases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of searching Korean databasesand journals for trials eligible for inclusion in existing Cochrane acupuncture reviews.Methods
We searched 12 Korean databases and seven Korean journals to identify randomised trials meeting the inclusion criteria for acupuncture reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared risk of bias assessments of the Korean trials with the trials included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Where possible, we added data from the Korean trials to the existing meta-analyses in the relevant Cochrane review and conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results.Results
Sixteen Korean trials (742 participants) met the inclusion criteria for eight Cochrane acupuncture reviews (125 trials; 13,041 participants). Inclusion of the Korean trials provided data for 20% of existing meta-analyses (24 out of 120). Inclusion of the Korean trials did not change the direction of effect in any of the existing meta-analyses. The effect size and heterogeneity remained mostly unchanged. In only one meta-analysis did the significance change. Compared to the studies included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews, the risk of bias in the Korean trials was higher in terms of outcome assessor blinding and allocation concealment.Conclusions
Many Korean studies contributed additional data to the existing meta-analyses in Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Although inclusion of these studies did not alter the results of the meta-analyses, comprehensive searches of the literature are important to avoid potential language bias. The identification and inclusion of eligible Korean trials should be considered for reviews of acupuncture. 相似文献5.
Background
Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.Methods and Findings
For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.Conclusions
When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews. 相似文献6.
7.
Background
Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance.Methods
Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses.Results
Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate.Conclusions
Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses. 相似文献8.
Nikolaos Pandis Padhraig S. Fleming Helen Worthington Kerry Dwan Georgia Salanti 《PloS one》2015,10(9)
Objectives
To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).Study Design and Setting
All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently.Results
One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance.Conclusion
While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored. 相似文献9.
Background
Meta-analyses are considered the gold standard of evidence-based health care, and are used to guide clinical decisions and health policy. A major limitation of current meta-analysis techniques is their inability to pool ordinal data. Our objectives were to determine the extent of this problem in the context of neurological rating scales and to provide a solution.Methods
Using an existing database of clinical trials of oral neuroprotective therapies, we identified the 6 most commonly used clinical rating scales and recorded how data from these scales were reported and analysed. We then identified systematic reviews of studies that used these scales (via the Cochrane database) and recorded the meta-analytic techniques used. Finally, we identified a statistical technique for calculating a common language effect size measure for ordinal data.Results
We identified 103 studies, with 128 instances of the 6 clinical scales being reported. The majority– 80%–reported means alone for central tendency, with only 13% reporting medians. In analysis, 40% of studies used parametric statistics alone, 34% of studies employed non-parametric analysis, and 26% did not include or specify analysis. Of the 60 systematic reviews identified that included meta-analysis, 88% used mean difference and 22% employed difference in proportions; none included rank-based analysis. We propose the use of a rank-based generalised odds ratio (WMW GenOR) as an assumption-free effect size measure that is easy to compute and can be readily combined in meta-analysis.Conclusion
There is wide scope for improvement in the reporting and analysis of ordinal data in the literature. We hope that adoption of the WMW GenOR will have the dual effect of improving the reporting of data in individual studies while also increasing the inclusivity (and therefore validity) of meta-analyses. 相似文献10.
Robert S. Phillips Bryonnie Scott Simon J. Carter Matthew Taylor Eleanor Peirce Patrick Davies Ian K. Maconochie 《PloS one》2015,10(6)
Background
Cardiopulmonary arrest in children is an uncommon event, and often fatal. Resuscitation is often attempted, but at what point, and under what circumstances do continued attempts to re-establish circulation become futile? The uncertainty around these questions can lead to unintended distress to the family and to the resuscitation team.Objectives
To define the likely outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children, within different patient groups, related to clinical features.Data Sources
MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-Process & Other non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and Cochrane central register of trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment database, along with reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included articles.Study Eligibility Criteria
Prospective cohort studies which derive or validate a clinical prediction model of outcome following cardiopulmonary arrest.Participants and Interventions
Children or young people (aged 0 – 18 years) who had cardiopulmonary arrest and received an attempt at resuscitation, excluding resuscitation at birth.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
Risk of bias assessment developed the Hayden system for non-randomised studies and QUADAS2 for decision rules. Synthesis undertaken by narrative, and random effects meta-analysis with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator.Results
More than 18,000 episodes in 16 data sets were reported. Meta-analysis was possible for survival and one neurological outcome; others were reported too inconsistently. In-hospital patients (average survival 37.2% (95% CI 23.7 to 53.0%)) have a better chance of survival following cardiopulmonary arrest than out-of-hospital arrests (5.8% (95% CI 3.9% to 8.6%)). Better neurological outcome was also seen, but data were too scarce for meta-analysis (17% to 71% ‘good’ outcomes, compared with 2.8% to 3.2%).Limitation
Lack of consistent outcome reporting and short-term neurological outcome measures limited the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from this review.Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings
There is a need to collaboratively, prospectively, collect potentially predictive data on these rare events to understand more clearly the predictors of survival and long-term neurological outcome.Systematic Review Registration Number
PROSPERO 2013:CRD42013005102 相似文献11.
Hong Ding Guang Li Hu Xue Yan Zheng Qing Chen Diane Erin Threapleton Zeng Huan Zhou 《PloS one》2015,10(4)
Background
It is possible that cross-over studies included in current systematic reviews are being inadequately assessed, because the current risk of bias tools do not consider possible biases specific to cross-over design. We performed this study to evaluate whether this was being done in cross-over studies included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs).Methods
We searched the Cochrane Library (up to 2013 issue 5) for CSRs that included at least one cross-over trial. Two authors independently undertook the study selection and data extraction. A random sample of the CSRs was selected and we evaluated whether the cross-over trials in these CSRs were assessed according to criteria suggested by the Cochrane handbook. In addition we reassessed the risk of bias of these cross-over trials by a checklist developed form the Cochrane handbook.Results
We identified 688 CSRs that included one or more cross-over studies. We chose a random sample of 60 CSRs and these included 139 cross-over studies. None of these CSRs undertook a risk of bias assessment specific for cross-over studies. In fact items specific for cross-over studies were seldom considered anywhere in quality assessment of these CSRs. When we reassessed the risk of bias, including the 3 items specific to cross-over trials, of these 139 studies, a low risk of bias was judged for appropriate cross-over design in 110(79%), carry-over effects in 48(34%) and for reporting data in all stages of the trial in 114(82%).Assessment of biases in cross-over trials could affect the GRADE assessment of a review’s findings.Conclusion
The current Cochrane risk of bias tool is not adequate to assess cross-over studies. Items specific to cross-over trials leading to potential risk of bias are generally neglected in CSRs. A proposed check list for the evaluation of cross-over trials is provided. 相似文献12.
Background
Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.Objective
To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles’ quality.Methods
The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.Results
A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.Conclusion
The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource. 相似文献13.
Purpose
We aim to systematically summarize the available epidemiological evidence to identify the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health.Methods
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for meta-analyses was conducted through January 2015. We included systematic reviews that investigated the association between passive smoking and certain diseases. Quantitative outcomes of association between passive smoking and the risk of certain diseases were summarized.Results
Sixteen meta-analyses covering 130 cohort studies, 159 case-control studies, and 161 cross-sectional studies and involving 25 diseases or health problems were reviewed. Passive smoking appears not to be significantly associated with eight diseases or health problems, but significantly elevates the risk for eleven specific diseases or health problems, including invasive meningococcal disease in children (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.63–2.92), cervical cancer (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35–2.21), Neisseria meningitidis carriage (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.19–2.36), Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.33–2.07), lower respiratory infections in infancy (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.33–1.51), food allergy (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.12–1.83), and so on.Conclusions
Our overview of systematic reviews of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that passive smoking is significantly associated with an increasing risk of many diseases or health problems, especially diseases in children and cancers. 相似文献14.
Purpose
To review the evidence from RCTs on clinical outcomes and benefit of acute tibial fracture and nonunion treated with and without BMPs.Material
We searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMABSE, BIOSIS and Cochrane central) as well as reference lists of articles and contacted authors. Evaluated outcomes included union rate, revision rate, hardware failure and infection. The weighted and standard mean difference (WMD and SMD) or the relative risk (RR) was calculated for continuous or dichotomous data respectively. The quality of the trial was assessed, and meta-analyses were performed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s REVMAN 5.0 software.Results
Eight RCTs involving 1113 patients were included. For acute tibial fracture, BMP group was associated with a higher rate of union (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower rate of revision (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85) compared with control group. No significant differences were found in rate of hardware failure and infection. The pooled RR for achieving union for tibial fracture nonunion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.13). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of revision (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.85) and infection (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.02).Conclusion
Study on acute tibial fractures suggests that BMP is more effective that controls, for bone union and for decreasing the rate of surgical revision to achieve union. For the treatment of tibial fracture nonunion, BMP leads to similar results to as autogenous bone grafting. Finally, well-designed RCTs of BMP for tibial fracture treatment are also needed. 相似文献15.
Background
A number of studies have assessed the predictive effect of QRS-T angles in various populations since the last decade. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of spatial/frontal QRS-T angle on all-cause death and cardiac death.Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception until June 5, 2014. Studies reporting the predictive effect of spatial/frontal QRS-T angle on all-cause/cardiac death in all populations were included. Relative risk (RR) was used as a measure of effect.Results
Twenty-two studies enrolling 164,171 individuals were included. In the combined analysis in all populations, a wide spatial QRS-T angle was associated with an increase in all-cause death (maximum-adjusted RR: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32 to 1.48) and cardiac death (maximum-adjusted RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.90), a wide frontal QRS-T angle also predicted a higher rate of all-cause death (maximum-adjusted RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.90). Largely similar results were found using different methods of categorizing for QRS-T angles, and similar in subgroup populations such as general population, populations with suspected coronary heart disease or heart failure. Other stratified analyses and meta-analyses using unadjusted data also generated consistent findings.Conclusions
Spatial QRS-T angle held promising prognostic value on all-cause death and cardiac death. Frontal QRS-T angle was also a promising predictor of all-cause death. Given the good predictive value of QRS-T angle, a combined stratification strategy in which QRS-T angle is of vital importance might be expected. 相似文献16.
Importance
The fellow eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related degeneration (nAMD) is at increased risk of developing late AMD. Several cohort studies have evaluated the prevalence of pseudodrusen and the association between pseudodrusen and late AMD in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral nAMD. However, these studies have limited sample sizes and their results are inconsistent.Objective
To evaluate the prevalence rate of pseudodrusen, and the association between pseudodrusen and incidence of late AMD (nAMD and geographic atrophy (GA)) in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral nAMD.Data Sources
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2015, as well as other systematic reviews.Study Selection
All cohort studies for pseudodrusen with late AMD in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral nAMD.Data Extraction and Synthesis
The numbers of patients with and without pseudodrusen at baseline and the numbers of incident nAMD and GA during follow up among patients with and without pseudodrusen were independently extracted by 2 authors. The results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.Main Outcome Measures
Prevalence rate of pseudodrusen, risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for associations between pseudodrusen and the incidence of nAMD and GA in the fellow eye.Results
Five cohort studies (N = 677 patients) from 8 countries across 4 continents were included. The pooled prevalence rate of pseudodrusen in the fellow eye was 48.1% (95% Cl: 36.7–59.5%, I2 = 87%). Pseudodrusen were associated with an increased risk of nAMD (RR = 1.54, 95% Cl: 1.10–2.16, I2 = 42%), GA (RR = 4.70, 95% Cl: 1.22–18.1, I2 = 64%), and late AMD (RR = 2.03, 95% Cl: 1.35–3.06, I2 = 60%).Conclusions
For patients with unilateral nAMD, pseudodrusen were present in about half of the fellow eyes. The presence of pseudodrusen was associated with a 1.5 times higher risk of developing nAMD, a 4.7 times higher risk of developing GA, and a 2 times higher risk of developing late AMD. Pseudodrusen should be considered in evaluating the risk of late AMD development; however, due to considerable heterogeneity across these studies, a larger study is needed to validate these findings. 相似文献17.
Objective
The axillary reverse mapping (ARM) technique has recently been developed to prevent lymphedema by preserving the arm lymphatic drainage during sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) procedures. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and oncological safety of ARM.Methods
We searched Medline, Embase, Web of science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant prospective studies. The identification rate of ARM nodes, the crossover rate of SLN-ARM nodes, the proportion of metastatic ARM nodes, and the incidence of complications were pooled into meta-analyses by the random-effects model.Results
A total of 24 prospective studies were included into meta-analyses, of which 11 studies reported ARM during SLNB, and 18 studies reported ARM during SLNB. The overall identification rate of ARM nodes was 38.2% (95% CI 32.9%-43.8%) during SLNB and 82.8% (78.0%-86.6%) during ALND, respectively. The crossover rate of SLN-ARM nodes was 19.6% (95% CI 14.4%-26.1%). The metastatic rate of ARM nodes was 16.9% (95% CI 14.2%-20.1%). The pooled incidence of lymphedema was 4.1% (95% CI 2.9–5.9%) for patients undergoing ARM procedure.Conclusions
The ARM procedure was feasible during ALND. Nevertheless, it was restricted by low identification rate of ARM nodes during SLNB. ARM was beneficial for preventing lymphedema. However, this technique should be performed with caution given the possibility of crossover SLN-ARM nodes and metastatic ARM nodes. ARM appeared to be unsuitable for patients with clinically positive breast cancer due to oncological safety concern. 相似文献18.
19.
Chloe L. Edridge Alison J. Dunkley Danielle H. Bodicoat Tanith C. Rose Laura J. Gray Melanie J. Davies Kamlesh Khunti 《PloS one》2015,10(6)
Objective
To collate and evaluate the current literature reporting the prevalence and incidence of hypoglycaemia in population based studies of type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods
Medline, Embase and Cochrane were searched up to February 2014 to identify population based studies reporting the proportion of people with type 2 diabetes experiencing hypoglycaemia or rate of events experienced. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for included studies. Random effects meta-analyses were carried out to calculate the prevalence and incidence of hypoglycaemia.Results
46 studies (n = 532,542) met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of hypoglycaemia was 45% (95%CI 0.34,0.57) for mild/moderate and 6% (95%CI, 0.05,0.07) for severe. Incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes per person-year for mild/moderate and for severe was 19 (95%CI 0.00, 51.08) and 0.80 (95%CI 0.00,2.15), respectively. Hypoglycaemia was prevalent amongst those on insulin; for mild/moderate episodes the prevalence was 50% and incidence 23 events per person-year, and for severe episodes the prevalence was 21% and incidence 1 event per person-year. For treatment regimes that included a sulphonylurea, mild/moderate prevalence was 30% and incidence 2 events per person-year, and severe prevalence was 5% and incidence 0.01 events per person-year. A similar prevalence of 5% was found for treatment regimes that did not include sulphonylureas.Conclusions
Current evidence shows hypoglycaemia is considerably prevalent amongst people with type 2 diabetes, particularly for those on insulin, yet still fairly common for other treatment regimens. This highlights the subsequent need for educational interventions and individualisation of therapies to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. 相似文献20.