Perbandingan Perhitungan Trafik Jam Sibuk CDMA 2000 1x Pada BTS Inner City Dan BTS Outer City Dengan Mempergunakan Metode ADPH, TCBH, FDMH Dan FDMP

Cellular communication system is a wireless communication system where the subscriber can move within a wide network coverage. Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is a multiuser access technology that is each user uses a unique code contained in the access channel in the system. Calculation and determination of peak hours can be done by several methods such as: Average Daily Peak Hour (ADPH), Time Consistent Busy Hour (TCBH), Fixed Daily Measurement Hour (FDMH), Fixed Daily Measurement Period (FDMP). The effectiveness of the channel should be determined by occupancy both at inner city territory and outer city  territory location. Using design Erlang (Erl) for supply channel at Base Transceiver Station (BTS) that provided, BTS has a design Erlang of 369,83 Erl at inner city and it has a design Erlang of 241,8 Erl at outer city. Peak hour on the inner city occurred at 12:00 to 15:00, whereas the outer city of peak hour occurred at 18:00 to 21:00. Effectiveness value that determined by operator are : <20% = low occupancy (not effective), 21% to 69% = normal occupancy (effective), and > 70% = high occupancy (very effective). In this case occupancy values obtained in each method is between 21% to 69% which means effectiv

MSE of 3-cycles N-of-1 trials (<i>n</i> = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30).

<p>M1: Model 1; M2: Model 2; M3: Model 3; M4: Model 4. N/A: Meta-analysis was not available for <i>n</i> = 1 subject.</p

A Comparison of Four Methods for the Analysis of N-of-1 Trials

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To provide a practical guidance for the analysis of N-of-1 trials by comparing four commonly used models.</p><p>Methods</p><p>The four models, paired t-test, mixed effects model of difference, mixed effects model and meta-analysis of summary data were compared using a simulation study. The assumed 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were set with sample sizes of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 respectively under normally distributed assumption. The data were generated based on variance-covariance matrix under the assumption of (i) compound symmetry structure or first-order autoregressive structure, and (ii) no carryover effect or 20% carryover effect. Type I error, power, bias (mean error), and mean square error (MSE) of effect differences between two groups were used to evaluate the performance of the four models.</p><p>Results</p><p>The results from the 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were comparable with respect to type I error, power, bias and MSE. Paired t-test yielded type I error near to the nominal level, higher power, comparable bias and small MSE, whether there was carryover effect or not. Compared with paired t-test, mixed effects model produced similar size of type I error, smaller bias, but lower power and bigger MSE. Mixed effects model of difference and meta-analysis of summary data yielded type I error far from the nominal level, low power, and large bias and MSE irrespective of the presence or absence of carryover effect.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>We recommended paired t-test to be used for normally distributed data of N-of-1 trials because of its optimal statistical performance. In the presence of carryover effects, mixed effects model could be used as an alternative.</p></div

Power of 3-cycles N-of-1 trials (<i>n</i> = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30).

*<p>M1: Model 1; M2: Model 2; M3: Model 3; M4: Model 4. N/A: Meta-analysis was not available for <i>n</i> = 1 subject.</p

Bias (PE, %) of 3-cycles N-of-1 trials (<i>n</i> = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30).

<p>M1: Model 1; M2: Model 2; M3: Model 3; M4: Model 4. N/A: Meta-analysis was not available for <i>n</i> = 1 subject.</p

3-cycles N-of-1 trials. (There is a washout period between successive treatment periods).

<p>3-cycles N-of-1 trials. (There is a washout period between successive treatment periods).</p

Characteristics of Observational Studies Included in the Meta-analysis.

<p>ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; NICM, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; other abbreviations as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094614#pone-0094614-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p

Impact of Etiology on the Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients Treated with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been extensively demonstrated to benefit heart failure patients, but the role of underlying heart failure etiology in the outcomes was not consistently proven. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether efficacy and effectiveness of CRT is affected by underlying heart failure etiology.</p><p>Methods and Results</p><p>Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were conducted to identify RCTs and observational studies that reported clinical and functional outcomes of CRT in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients. Efficacy of CRT was assessed in 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7072 patients and effectiveness of CRT was evaluated in 14 observational studies with 3463 patients In the pooled analysis of RCTs, we found that CRT decreased mortality or heart failure hospitalization by 29% in ICM patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 21% to 35%), and by 28% (95% CI, 18% to 37%) in NICM patients. No significant difference was observed between the 2 etiology groups (P = 0.55). In the pooled analysis of observational studies, however, we found that ICM patients had a 54% greater risk for mortality or HF hospitalization than NICM patients (relative risk: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.30–1.83; P<0.001). Both RCTs and observational studies demonstrated that NICM patients had greater echocardiographic improvements in the left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, as compared with ICM patients (both P<0.001).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>CRT might reduce mortality or heart failure hospitalization in both ICM and NICM patients similarly. The improvement of the left ventricular function and remodeling is greater in NICM patients.</p></div

Forest Plots Showing the Impact of HF Etiology on Mortality or HF Hospitalization.

<p>(A): data from RCTs; (B): data from observational studies. COMPANION trial was 3 arms design; CI, confidence interval; HF, heart failure; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; MT, medical therapy; NICM, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; PCS, prospective cohort studies; RCS, retrospective cohort studies; RR, relative risk; and other abbreviations as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094614#pone-0094614-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1</a>.</p

Pooled Analyses of Secondary Outcomes (the Change from Baseline) in NICM Group versus ICM Group.

<p>WMD in change of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (A), SMD in change of Left Ventricular End-systolic Volume (B), WMD in change of 6-Min Walking Distance (C), and WMD in change of Quality of Life (D). WMD, weighted mean difference; SMD, standardized mean difference; and other abbreviations as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094614#pone-0094614-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a>.</p