Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: Direct empirical evidence for the existence of outcome reporting bias is accumulating and this source of bias is recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. METHODS: A method for calculating the maximum bias in a meta-analysis due to publication bias is adapted for the setting where within-study selective non-reporting of outcomes is suspected, and compared to the alternative approach of missing data imputation. The properties of both methods are investigated in realistic small sample situations. RESULTS: The results suggest that the adapted Copas and Jackson approach is the preferred method for reviewers to apply as an initial assessment of robustness to within-study selective non-reporting. CONCLUSION: The Copas and Jackson approach is a useful method for systematic reviewers to apply to assess robustness to outcome reporting bias

Variants in the Mannose-binding Lectin Gene MBL2 do not Associate With Sepsis Susceptibility or Survival in a Large European Cohort

We use a large cohort of immune competent adults to analyze the influence of MBL2 genetic variants on sepsis susceptibility and survival. We find no significant associations with the 4 main functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in MBL2, or any combination of genotype

Variants in the Mannose-binding Lectin Gene MBL2 do not Associate With Sepsis Susceptibility or Survival in a Large European Cohort.

BACKGROUND  Sepsis is an increasingly common condition, which continues to be associated with unacceptably high mortality. A large number of association studies have investigated susceptibility to, or mortality from, sepsis for variants in the functionally important immune-related gene MBL2. These studies have largely been underpowered and contradictory. METHODS  We genotyped and analyzed 4 important MBL2 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs5030737, rs1800450, rs1800451, and rs7096206) in 1839 European community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and peritonitis sepsis cases, and 477 controls from the United Kingdom. We analyzed the following predefined subgroups and outcomes: 28-day and 6 month mortality from sepsis due to CAP or peritonitis combined, 28-day mortality from CAP sepsis, peritonitis sepsis, pneumococcal sepsis or sepsis in younger patients, and susceptibility to CAP sepsis or pneumococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom. RESULTS  There were no significant associations (all P-values were greater than .05 after correction for multiple testing) between MBL2 genotypes and any of our predefined analyses. CONCLUSIONS  In this large, well-defined cohort of immune competent adult patients, no associations between MBL2 genotype and sepsis susceptibility or outcome were identified

Cohort Studies of Health Effects among People Exposed to Estuarine Waters: North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland

A variety of human symptoms have been associated with exposure to the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria and have been grouped together into a syndrome termed "possible estuary-associated syndrome." Prospective cohort studies of health effects associated with exposure to estuarine waters that may contain Pfiesteria spp. and related organisms are in progress in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. The three studies recruited cohorts of 118-238 subjects who work or engaged in recreation in estuary waters. Baseline health and neuropsychological evaluations are conducted, and study subjects are followed prospectively for 2-5 years with periodic assessments of health and performance on a battery of neuropsychological tests. Health symptoms and estuary water exposure are recorded by telephone interviews or diaries every 1-2 weeks. Water quality information, including measurements of Pfiesteria spp., is collected in the areas where the subjects are working. Because it is not possible to measure individual exposure to Pfiesteria or a toxin produced by this organism, these studies examine surrogate exposure measures (e.g., time spent in estuary waters, in a fish kill area, or in waters where Pfiesteria DNA was detected by molecular amplification). Preliminary analyses of the first 2 years (1998-2000) of data indicate that none of the three ongoing cohorts have detected adverse health effects. However, there have not been any reported fish kills associated with Pfiesteria since the studies began, so it is possible that none of the study subjects have been exposed to toxin-producing Pfiesteria spp

Variants in the Mannose-binding Lectin Gene MBL2 do not Associate With Sepsis Susceptibility or Survival in a Large European Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is an increasingly common condition, which continues to be associated with unacceptably high mortality. A large number of association studies have investigated susceptibility to, or mortality from, sepsis for variants in the functionally important immune-related gene MBL2. These studies have largely been underpowered and contradictory. METHODS: We genotyped and analyzed 4 important MBL2 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs5030737, rs1800450, rs1800451, and rs7096206) in 1839 European community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and peritonitis sepsis cases, and 477 controls from the United Kingdom. We analyzed the following predefined subgroups and outcomes: 28-day and 6 month mortality from sepsis due to CAP or peritonitis combined, 28-day mortality from CAP sepsis, peritonitis sepsis, pneumococcal sepsis or sepsis in younger patients, and susceptibility to CAP sepsis or pneumococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: There were no significant associations (all P-values were greater than .05 after correction for multiple testing) between MBL2 genotypes and any of our predefined analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, well-defined cohort of immune competent adult patients, no associations between MBL2 genotype and sepsis susceptibility or outcome were identified.The GenOSept study was supported by the European Union and benefits from the 6th framework programme of Research and Technology Development funding. This study was also funded by the GRACE project (6th Framework Programme of the European Commission Reference: LSHM-CT-2005-518226) and the Wellcome Trust Core Award (Grant Number 090532/Z/09/Z). We acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network for patient recruitment in the UK and A. C. G. as an NIHR Clinician Scientist award holderThe GenOSept study was supported by the European Union and benefits from the 6th framework programme of Research and Technology Development funding. This study was also funded by the GRACE project (6th Framework Programme of the European Commission Reference: LSHM-CT-2005-518226) and the Wellcome Trust Core Award (Grant Number 090532/Z/09/Z). We acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network for patient recruitment in the UK and A. C. G. as an NIHR Clinician Scientist award holde

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

Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.)