Use of re-randomized data in meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Outcomes collected in randomized clinical trials are observations of random variables that should be independent and identically distributed. However, in some trials, the patients are randomized more than once thus violating both of these assumptions. The probability of an event is not always the same when a patient is re-randomized; there is probably a non-zero covariance coming from observations on the same patient. This is of particular importance to the meta-analysts. METHODS: We developed a method to estimate the relative error in the risk differences with and without re-randomization of the patients. The relative error can be estimated by an expression depending on the percentage of the patients who were re-randomized, multipliers (how many times more likely it is to repeat an event) for the probability of reoccurrences, and the ratio of the total events reported and the initial number of patients entering the trial. RESULTS: We illustrate our methods using two randomized trials testing growth factors in febrile neutropenia. We showed that under some circumstances the relative error of taking into account re-randomized patients was sufficiently small to allow using the results in the meta-analysis. Our findings indicate that if the study in question is of similar size to other studies included in the meta-analysis, the error introduced by re-randomization will only minimally affect meta-analytic summary point estimate. We also show that in our model the risk ratio remains constant during the re-randomization, and therefore, if a meta-analyst is concerned about the effect of re-randomization on the meta-analysis, one way to sidestep the issue and still obtain reliable results is to use risk ratio as the measure of interest. CONCLUSION: Our method should be helpful in the understanding of the results of clinical trials and particularly helpful to the meta-analysts to assess if re-randomized patient data can be used in their analyses

Prediction and prevention of suicide in patients with unipolar depression and anxiety

Epidemiological data suggest that between 59 and 87% of suicide victims suffered from major depression while up to 15% of these patients will eventually commit suicide. Male gender, previous suicide attempt(s), comorbid mental disorders, adverse life-situations, acute psycho-social stressors etc. also constitute robust risk factors. Anxiety and minor depression present with a low to moderate increase in suicide risk but anxiety-depression comorbidity increases this risk dramatically Contrary to the traditional psychoanalytic approach which considers suicide as a retrospective murder or an aggression turned in-wards, more recent studies suggest that the motivations to commit suicide may vary and are often too obscure. Neurobiological data suggest that low brain serotonin activity might play a key role along with the tryptophan hydroxylase gene. Social factors include social support networks, religion etc. It is proven that most suicide victims had asked for professional help just before committing suicide, however they were either not diagnosed (particularly males) or the treatment they received was inappropriate or inadequate. The conclusion is that promoting suicide prevention requires the improving of training and skills of both psychiatrists and many non-psychiatrists and especially GPs in recognizing and treating depression and anxiety. A shift of focus of attention is required in primary care to detect potentially suicidal patients presenting with psychological problems. The proper use of antidepressants, after a careful diagnostic evaluation, is important and recent studies suggest that successful acute and long-term antidepressant pharmacotherapy reduces suicide morbidity and mortality

25th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS-2016

Abstracts of the 25th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS-2016 Seogwipo City, Jeju-do, South Korea. 2–7 July 201

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS