Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Reply

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146328/1/hep30137_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146328/2/hep30137.pd

Physical and mental health comorbidity is common in people with multiple sclerosis: nationally representative cross-sectional population database analysis

<b>Background</b> Comorbidity in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is associated with worse health and higher mortality. This study aims to describe clinician recorded comorbidities in people with MS. <p></p> <b>Methods</b> 39 comorbidities in 3826 people with MS aged ≥25 years were compared against 1,268,859 controls. Results were analysed by age, gender, and socioeconomic status, with unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) calculated using logistic regression. <p></p> <b>Results</b> People with MS were more likely to have one (OR 2.44; 95% CI 2.26-2.64), two (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.62), three (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.69-2.04), four or more (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.47-1.77) non-MS chronic conditions than controls, and greater mental health comorbidity (OR 2.94; 95% CI 2.75-3.14), which increased as the number of physical comorbidities rose. Cardiovascular conditions, including atrial fibrillation (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.67), chronic kidney disease (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.65), heart failure (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.85), coronary heart disease (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.71), and hypertension (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59-0.72) were significantly less common in people with MS. <p></p> <b>Conclusion</b> People with MS have excess multiple chronic conditions, with associated increased mental health comorbidity. The low recorded cardiovascular comorbidity warrants further investigation

An Assessment of Computer Use, Knowledge, and Attitudes of Diabetes Educators

A questionnaire to survey attitudes, use, and knowledge of computers was sent to 816 randomly selected members of AADE to determine the degree to which currently available computer resources are used in diabetes education and to investigate the need for future computing resources designed to support diabetes education. Analysis of the data showed that even diabetes educators who use computers infrequently have a generally favorable attitude toward them. Highest use of computers is in noneducational applications, mostly for word processing and record keeping. Most respondents believe that computers have yet to make a major contribution to the teaching and learning process in diabetes education, and few felt adequately prepared for creative use or development of computer applications. Increasing the role of computers in support of patient education will require encouragement and demonstrations of computer efficacy from health care institutions and professional organizations.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68469/2/10.1177_014572179201800107.pd

Neural Network Parameterizations of Electromagnetic Nucleon Form Factors

The electromagnetic nucleon form-factors data are studied with artificial feed forward neural networks. As a result the unbiased model-independent form-factor parametrizations are evaluated together with uncertainties. The Bayesian approach for the neural networks is adapted for chi2 error-like function and applied to the data analysis. The sequence of the feed forward neural networks with one hidden layer of units is considered. The given neural network represents a particular form-factor parametrization. The so-called evidence (the measure of how much the data favor given statistical model) is computed with the Bayesian framework and it is used to determine the best form factor parametrization.Comment: The revised version is divided into 4 sections. The discussion of the prior assumptions is added. The manuscript contains 4 new figures and 2 new tables (32 pages, 15 figures, 2 tables