Meta-analysis of the Association between HLA-DRB1 Allele and Rheumatoid Arthritis Susceptibility in Asian Populations

The aims of this study were to summarize results on the association of HLA-DRB1 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Asians and to determine if the shared epitope (SE) hypothesis could explain the meta-analysis results. Among the papers published between January 1987 and July 2006 on RA susceptibility in Asian-Mongoloid populations (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Thai), 12 were selected for the meta-analysis. Mongoloid-Asian patients with RA had significantly higher frequencies of HLA-DRB1*0101, *0401, *0410, and *1001 than controls (OR 1.5-2.1, p<0.05 for association). When analyses were restricted to more ethnically homogeneous populations, HLA-DRB1*0405 showed a significant susceptibility to RA in Koreans (OR 5.65, 95% CI 4.32-7.39), whereas the HLA-DRB1*0301, *0403, *0406, *0701, *1301, and *1405 alleles showed protective association with RA (OR 0.32-0.70, p<0.05 for association). In conclusion, it was found that HLA-DRB1 *0101, *0401, *0405, *0410, and *1001 are susceptible, while HLA-DRB1*0301, *0403, *0406, *0701, *1301, and *1405 are protective in Asian-Mongoloids. All the RA-associated alleles except DRB1*0301 could be explained by the structural model supporting the SE hypothesis that RA susceptibility is determined by the combination of amino acid residues at HLA-DR β71 and β74, not by β71 alone

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.</p> <p>The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.</p

STORIES Statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis

Fully copy of the STORIES statement - a checklist of reporting guidance for health education evidence synthesis Structured approach for Reporting In health education of Evidence Synthesis Background Evidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors. Methods A review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment. Results Nineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained. Conclusions An international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community

Association between HLA-DRB1 alleles polymorphism and hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>HLA-DRB1 allele polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with hepatocellular carcinoma susceptibility, but the results of these previous studies have been inconsistent. The purpose of the present study was to explore whether specific HLA-DRB1 alleles (DRB1*07, DRB1*12, DRB1*15) confer susceptibility to hepatocellular carcinoma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Case-control studies on HLA-DRB1 alleles association with HCC were searched up to January 2010 through a systematic review of the literature. The odds ratios (ORs) of HLA-DRB1 allele distributions in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were analyzed against healthy controls. The meta-analysis software REVMAN 5.0 was applied for investigating heterogeneity among individual studies and for summarizing all the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect methods, depending on absence or presence of significant heterogeneity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight case-control studies were included in the final analysis. Among the 3 HLA-DRB1 alleles studied, DRB1*07 and DRB1*12 were significantly associated with the risk of HCC in the whole populations (OR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.08-2.51, P = 0.02 and OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.09-2.32, P = 0.02, respectively). No significant association was established for DRB1*15 allele with HCC in the whole populations. Subgroup analysis by ethnicity showed that DRB1*07, DRB1*12 and DRB1*15 alleles significantly increased the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asians (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.06-4.14, P = 0.03; OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.17-2.57, P = 0.006 and <b><it>OR </it></b>= 2.88, <it><b>95%CI: 1</b></it>.77-4.69, P <<it><b>0.001</b></it>, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results support the hypothesis that specific HLA-DRB1 alleles might influence the susceptibility of hepatocellular carcinoma. Large, multi-ethnic confirmatory and well designed studies are needed to determine the host genetic determinants of hepatocellular carcinoma.</p

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials

Development and evaluation of an instrument for the critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials of natural products

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy of natural products (NPs) is being evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with increasing frequency, yet a search of the literature did not identify a widely accepted critical appraisal instrument developed specifically for use with NPs. The purpose of this project was to develop and evaluate a critical appraisal instrument that is sufficiently rigorous to be used in evaluating RCTs of conventional medicines, and also has a section specific for use with single entity NPs, including herbs and natural sourced chemicals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three phases of the project included: 1) using experts and a Delphi process to reach consensus on a list of items essential in describing the identity of an NP; 2) compiling a list of non-NP items important for evaluating the quality of an RCT using systematic review methodology to identify published instruments and then compiling item categories that were part of a validated instrument and/or had empirical evidence to support their inclusion and 3) conducting a field test to compare the new instrument to a published instrument for usefulness in evaluating the quality of 3 RCTs of a NP and in applying results to practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two Delphi rounds resulted in a list of 15 items essential in describing NPs. Seventeen item categories fitting inclusion criteria were identified from published instruments for conventional medicines. The new assessment instrument was assembled based on content of the two lists and the addition of a Reviewer's Conclusion section. The field test of the new instrument showed good criterion validity. Participants found it useful in translating evidence from RCTs to practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A new instrument for the critical appraisal of RCTs of NPs was developed and tested. The instrument is distinct from other available assessment instruments for RCTs of NPs in its systematic development and validation. The instrument is ready to be used by pharmacy students, health care practitioners and academics and will continue to be refined as required.</p