Hypocapnia is a biological marker for orthostatic intolerance in some patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

CONTEXT: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and those with orthostatic intolerance share many symptoms, yet questions exist as to whether CFS patients have physiological evidence of orthostatic intolerance. OBJECTIVE: To determine if some CFS patients have increased rates of orthostatic hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, or hypocapnia relative to age-matched controls. DESIGN: Assess blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, end tidal CO2 and visual analog scales for orthostatic symptoms when supine and when standing for 8 minutes without moving legs. SETTING: Referral practice and research center. PARTICIPANTS: 60 women and 15 men with CFS and 36 women and 4 men serving as age matched controls with analyses confined to 62 patients and 35 controls showing either normal orthostatic testing or a physiological abnormal test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Orthostatic tachycardia; orthostatic hypotension; orthostatic hypertension; orthostatic hypocapnia or combinations thereof. RESULTS: CFS patients had higher rates of abnormal tests than controls (53% vs 20%, p < .002), but rates of orthostatic tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, and orthostatic hypertension did not differ significantly between patients and controls (11.3% vs 5.7%, 6.5% vs 2.9%, 19.4% vs 11.4%, respectively). In contrast, rates of orthostatic hypocapnia were significantly higher in CFS than in controls (20.6% vs 2.9%, p < .02). This CFS group reported significantly more feelings of illness and shortness of breath than either controls or CFS patients with normal physiological tests. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of CFS patients have orthostatic intolerance in the form of orthostatic hypocapnia. This allows subgrouping of patients with CFS and thus reduces patient pool heterogeneity engendered by use of a clinical case definition

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

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Review of Meta-Analyses

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery with surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer have shown no difference in survival between the two treatments. Meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer, however, are discordant. Methods: For the present study, published meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer were identified from the PubMed database and critically appraised in order to make a judgment on the applicability of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical practice and decision making. Results: Two of the six meta-analyses examined did not show a significant survival benefit in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Differences in the studies included and statistical methods applied might account for this. Moreover, there was heterogeneity between the RCTs included in the meta-analyses with regard to the patients included, tumor histology, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimes. Also, surgical technique was not uniform. No data on individual patients were available for most meta-analyses. The RCTs included in the meta-analyses were of inadequate sample size. All were started in the nineties, and hence methods for diagnosis, staging, treatment delivery, and outcome measurement reflect clinical practice during that decade. Conclusions: The current data on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer strongly indicate the need for designing future high-quality trials that will contribute to a better understanding of the role of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable cancer of the esophagus and help to identify patient subgroups that would benefit most

Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is often considered to be a simple way to summarize the existing literature. In this paper we describe how a meta-analysis resembles a conventional study, requiring a written protocol with design elements that parallel those of a record review. METHODS: The paper provides a structure for creating a meta-analysis protocol. Some guidelines for measurement of the quality of papers are given. A brief overview of statistical considerations is included. Four papers are reviewed as examples. The examples generally followed the guidelines we specify in reporting the studies and results, but in some of the papers there was insufficient information on the meta-analysis process. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis can be a very useful method to summarize data across many studies, but it requires careful thought, planning and implementation

A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Meta-analyses of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for preventing contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN) have led to disparate conclusions. Here we examine and attempt to resolve the heterogeneity evident among these trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two reviewers independently extracted and graded the data. Limiting studies to randomized, controlled trials with adequate outcome data yielded 22 reports with 2746 patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Significant heterogeneity was detected among these trials (<it>I</it>²= 37%; <it>p </it>= 0.04). Meta-regression analysis failed to identify significant sources of heterogeneity. A modified L'Abbé plot that substituted groupwise changes in serum creatinine for nephrotoxicity rates, followed by model-based, unsupervised clustering resolved trials into two distinct, significantly different (<it>p </it>< 0.0001) and homogeneous populations (<it>I</it>²= 0 and <it>p </it>> 0.5, for both). Cluster 1 studies (<it>n </it>= 18; 2445 patients) showed no benefit (relative risk (RR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.12, <it>p </it>= 0.28), while cluster 2 studies (<it>n </it>= 4; 301 patients) indicated that NAC was highly beneficial (RR = 0.15; 95% CI 0.07–0.33, <it>p </it>< 0.0001). Benefit in cluster 2 was unexpectedly associated with NAC-induced decreases in creatinine from baseline (<it>p </it>= 0.07). Cluster 2 studies were relatively early, small and of lower quality compared with cluster 1 studies (<it>p </it>= 0.01 for the three factors combined). Dialysis use across all studies (five control, eight treatment; <it>p </it>= 0.42) did not suggest that NAC is beneficial.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis does not support the efficacy of NAC to prevent CIN.</p