Assessment of funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias in reproductive health meta-analyses: an analytic survey

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to assure high methodological standards, systematic reviews may be affected by publication bias. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of publication bias in a collection of high quality systematic reviews on reproductive health. METHODS: Systematic reviews included in the Reproductive Health Library (RHL), issue No 9, were assessed. Funnel plot was used to assess meta-analyses containing 10 or more trials reporting a binary outcome. A funnel plot, the estimated number of missing studies and the adjusted combined effect size were obtained using the "trim and fill method". Meta-analyses results that were not considered to be robust due to a possible publication bias were submitted to a more detailed assessment. RESULTS: A total of 21 systematic reviews were assessed. The number of trials comprising each one ranged from 10 to 83 (median = 13), totaling 379 trials, whose results have been summarized. None of the reviews had reported any evaluation of publication bias or funnel plot asymmetry. Some degree of asymmetry in funnel plots was observed in 18 of the 21 meta-analyses evaluated (85.7%), with the estimated number of missing studies ranging from 1 to 18 (median = 3). Only for three meta-analyses, the conclusion could not be considered robust due to a possible publication bias. CONCLUSION: Asymmetry is a frequent finding in funnel plots of meta-analyses in reproductive health, but according to the present evaluation, less than 15% of meta-analyses report conclusions that would not be considered robust. Publication bias and other sources of asymmetry in funnel plots should be systematically addressed by reproductive health meta-analysts. Next amendments in Cochrane systematic reviews should include this type of evaluation. Further studies regarding the evolution of effect size and publication bias over time in systematic reviews in reproductive health are needed

Longitudinal, population-based study of racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer survival: impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status, treatment and comorbidity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer, if detected early, has greater than 90% 5-year survival. However, survival has been shown to vary across racial/ethnic groups in the United States, despite the availability of early detection methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study evaluated the joint effects of sociodemographic factors, tumor characteristics, census-based socioeconomic status (SES), treatment, and comorbidities on survival after colorectal cancer among and within racial/ethnic groups, using the SEER-Medicare database for patients diagnosed in 1992–1996, and followed through 1999.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Unadjusted colorectal cancer-specific mortality rates were higher among Blacks and Hispanic males than whites (relative rates (95% confidence intervals) = 1.34 (1.26–1.42) and 1.16 (1.04–1.29), respectively), and lower among Japanese (0.78 (0.70–0.88)). These patterns were evident for all-cause mortality, although the magnitude of the disparity was larger for colorectal cancer mortality. Adjustment for stage accounted for the higher rate among Hispanic males and most of the lower rate among Japanese. Among Blacks, stage and SES accounted for about half of the higher rate relative to Whites, and within stage III colon and stages II/III rectal cancer, SES completely accounted for the small differentials in survival between Blacks and Whites. Comorbidity did not appear to explain the Black-White differentials in colorectal-specific nor all-cause mortality, beyond stage, and treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) explained a very small proportion of the Black-White difference. The fully-adjusted relative mortality rates comparing Blacks to Whites was 1.14 (1.09–1.20) for all-cause mortality and 1.21 (1.14–1.29) for colorectal cancer specific mortality. The sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics also had different impacts on mortality within racial/ethnic groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this comprehensive analysis, race/ethnic-specific models revealed differential effects of covariates on survival after colorectal cancer within each group, suggesting that different strategies may be necessary to improve survival in each group. Among Blacks, half of the differential in survival after colorectal cancer was primarily attributable to stage and SES, but differences in survival between Blacks and Whites remain unexplained with the data available in this comprehensive, population-based, analysis.</p

Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes journaltitle: Cell articlelink: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.046 content_type: article copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc

Patient reported opioid usage following vulvar surgery in gynecologic oncology

Background: There remains a paucity of data for vulvar surgery outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) ®. As such, the primary objective is to assess the impact of patient and procedural factors on patient reported postoperative opioid usage following vulvar surgery. Secondary objective is to create a tailored opioid prescribing algorithm for this population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent vulvar surgery for a gynecologic malignancy between 3/2019–7/2022. Covariates of interest included a history of risk factors for opioid usage, age, anatomic location of the vulvar resection, radicality of surgery, groin dissection, use of postoperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and complications. Logistic regression models evaluated the effects that sociodemographic characteristics and procedural factors have on opioid usage. Linear regression models were created to determine prescribing guidelines. Results: A total of 100 patients were included. Following surgery, 35 patients (35 %) were not sent home with an opioid prescription, 39 patients (39 %) reported using at least one opioid pill from their prescription, and 26 patients (26 %) reported not using any opioid pills from their prescription. In the regression models, patient age (p < 0.006) had a significant impact on opioid use, while all other factors did not. Contraindications to NSAIDs did not have a statistically significant impact (p = 0.1) but was deemed clinically meaningful and included in the final model. Proposed opioid prescribing guidelines were created. Conclusion: In conclusion, most patients after vulvar surgery require little to no opioids. Identifiable preoperative factors can aid providers to manage postoperative pain while minimizing unnecessary opioid prescriptions

[Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration].

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research