Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of methodology in orthopaedics-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2006 to December 2010 in the top orthopaedic journals based on impact scores from the Thompson ISI citation reports (2010). METHODS: Journals included American Journal of Sports Medicine; Journal of Orthopaedic Research; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American; Spine Journal; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Each RCT was assessed on ten criteria (randomization method, allocation sequence concealment, participant blinding, outcome assessor blinding, outcome measurement, interventionist training, withdrawals, intent to treat analyses, clustering, and baseline characteristics) as having empirical evidence for biasing treatment effect estimates when not performed properly. RESULTS: A total of 232 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The proportion of RCTs in published journals fell from 6% in 2006 to 4% in 2010. Forty-nine percent of the criteria were fulfilled across these journals, with 42% of the criteria not being amendable to assessment due to inadequate reporting. The results of our regression revealed that a more recent publication year was significantly associated with more fulfilled criteria (β = 0.171; CI = −0.00 to 0.342; p = 0.051). CONCLUSION: In summary, very few studies met all ten criteria. Thus, many of these studies likely have biased estimates of treatment effects. In addition, these journals had poor reporting of important methodological aspects

Schizophrenia-associated somatic copy-number variants from 12,834 cases reveal recurrent NRXN1 and ABCB11 disruptions

While germline copy-number variants (CNVs) contribute to schizophrenia (SCZ) risk, the contribution of somatic CNVs (sCNVs)—present in some but not all cells—remains unknown. We identified sCNVs using blood-derived genotype arrays from 12,834 SCZ cases and 11,648 controls, filtering sCNVs at loci recurrently mutated in clonal blood disorders. Likely early-developmental sCNVs were more common in cases (0.91%) than controls (0.51%, p = 2.68e−4), with recurrent somatic deletions of exons 1–5 of the NRXN1 gene in five SCZ cases. Hi-C maps revealed ectopic, allele-specific loops forming between a potential cryptic promoter and non-coding cis-regulatory elements upon 5′ deletions in NRXN1. We also observed recurrent intragenic deletions of ABCB11, encoding a transporter implicated in anti-psychotic response, in five treatment-resistant SCZ cases and showed that ABCB11 is specifically enriched in neurons forming mesocortical and mesolimbic dopaminergic projections. Our results indicate potential roles of sCNVs in SCZ risk

Applicable or non-applicable: investigations of clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews

Abstract Background Clinical heterogeneity can be defined as differences in participant characteristics, types or timing of outcome measurements and intervention characteristics. Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews has the possibility to significantly affect statistical heterogeneity leading to inaccurate conclusions and misled decision making. The aim of this study is to identify to what extent investigators are assessing clinical heterogeneity in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Methods The most recent 100 systematic reviews from the top five journals in medicine—JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and PLOS Medicine—and the 100 most recently published and/or updated systematic reviews from Cochrane were collected. Various defined items of clinical heterogeneity were extracted from the included reviews. Investigators used chi-squared tests, logarithmic modeling and linear regressions to determine if the presence of such items served as a predictor for clinical heterogeneity when comparing Cochrane to non-Cochrane reviews. Extracted variables include number of studies, number of participants, presence of quantitative synthesis, exploration of clinical heterogeneity, heterogeneous characteristics explored, basis and methods used for investigating clinical heterogeneity, plotting/visual aids, author contact, inferences from clinical heterogeneity investigation, reporting assessment, and the presence of a priori or post-hoc analysis. Results A total of 317 systematic reviews were considered, of which 199 were in the final analysis. A total of 81 % of Cochrane reviews and 90 % of non-Cochrane reviews explored characteristics that are considered aspects of clinical heterogeneity and also described the methods they planned to use to investigate the influence of those characteristics. Only 1 % of non-Cochrane reviews and 8 % of Cochrane reviews explored the clinical characteristics they initially chose as potential for clinical heterogeneity. Very few studies mentioned clinician training, compliance, brand, co-interventions, dose route, ethnicity, prognostic markers and psychosocial variables as covariates to investigate as potentially clinically heterogeneous. Addressing aspects of clinical heterogeneity was not different between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusions The ability to quantify and compare the clinical differences of trials within a meta-analysis is crucial to determining its applicability and use in clinical practice. Despite Cochrane Collaboration emphasis on methodology, the proportion of reviews that assess clinical heterogeneity is less than those of non-Cochrane reviews. Our assessment reveals that there is room for improvement in assessing clinical heterogeneity in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Large eQTL meta-analysis reveals differing patterns between cerebral cortical and cerebellar brain regions

© 2020, The Author(s). The availability of high-quality RNA-sequencing and genotyping data of post-mortem brain collections from consortia such as CommonMind Consortium (CMC) and the Accelerating Medicines Partnership for Alzheimer’s Disease (AMP-AD) Consortium enable the generation of a large-scale brain cis-eQTL meta-analysis. Here we generate cerebral cortical eQTL from 1433 samples available from four cohorts (identifying >4.1 million significant eQTL for >18,000 genes), as well as cerebellar eQTL from 261 samples (identifying 874,836 significant eQTL for >10,000 genes). We find substantially improved power in the meta-analysis over individual cohort analyses, particularly in comparison to the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project eQTL. Additionally, we observed differences in eQTL patterns between cerebral and cerebellar brain regions. We provide these brain eQTL as a resource for use by the research community. As a proof of principle for their utility, we apply a colocalization analysis to identify genes underlying the GWAS association peaks for schizophrenia and identify a potentially novel gene colocalization with lncRNA RP11-677M14.2 (posterior probability of colocalization 0.975)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field