Finding the direction of disturbance propagation in a chemical process using transfer entropy

Published versio

Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up : a systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men having sex with men are very useful for health care decisions and planning. Such appraisal is particularly difficult, however, as the quality assessment tools available for use with observational and analytic studies are poorly established.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the existing quality assessment tools for systematic reviews of observational studies and developed a concise quality assessment checklist to help standardise decisions regarding the quality of studies, with careful consideration of issues such as external and internal validity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A pilot version of the checklist was developed based on epidemiological principles, reviews of study designs, and existing checklists for the assessment of observational studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) Score consists of five items: External validity (1 item), reporting (2 items), bias (1 item) and confounding factors (1 item). Expert opinions were sought and it was tested on manuscripts that fulfil the inclusion criteria of a systematic review. Like all assessment scales, QATSO may oversimplify and generalise information yet it is inclusive, simple and practical to use, and allows comparability between papers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A specific tool that allows researchers to appraise and guide study quality of observational studies is developed and can be modified for similar studies in the future.</p

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Balanced decisions about health care interventions require reliable evidence on harms as well as benefits. Most systematic reviews focus on efficacy and randomised trials, for which the methodology is well established. Methods to systematically review harmful effects are less well developed and there are few sources of guidance for researchers. We present our own recent experience of conducting systematic reviews of harmful effects and make suggestions for future practice and further research. METHODS: We described and compared the methods used in three systematic reviews. Our evaluation focused on the review question, study designs and quality assessment. RESULTS: One review question focused on providing information on specific harmful effects to furnish an economic model, the other two addressed much broader questions. All three reviews included randomised and observational data, although each defined the inclusion criteria differently. Standard methods were used to assess study quality. Various practical problems were encountered in applying the study design inclusion criteria and assessing quality, mainly because of poor study design, inadequate reporting and the limitations of existing tools. All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question. This will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review. The methodology for assessing the quality of harmful effects data in systematic reviews requires further development

The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring <30 days after within-trial myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with fixed-effects meta-analyses. In up to 17 trials with 132 538 participants conducted over 4.3 [weighted standard deviation (SD) 1.4] years, statin therapy reduced LDL-cholesterol by 0.97 mmol/L (weighted SD 0.38 mmol/L). Statins reduced the numbers of patients experiencing non-fatal HF hospitalization (1344/66 238 vs. 1498/66 330; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.97) and the composite HF outcome (1234/57 734 vs. 1344/57 836; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not HF death (213/57 734 vs. 220/57 836; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17). The effect of statins on first non-fatal HF hospitalization was similar whether this was preceded by MI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.11) or not (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98).In primary- and secondary-prevention trials, statins modestly reduced the risks of non-fatal HF hospitalization and a composite of non-fatal HF hospitalization and HF death with no demonstrable difference in risk reduction between those who suffered an MI or not

Alendronate increases BMD at appendicular and axial skeletons in patients with established osteoporosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify high-risk patients and provide pharmacological treatment is one of the effective approaches in prevention of osteoporotic fractures. This study investigated the effect of 12-month Alendronate treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover biochemical markers in postmenopausal women with one or more non-traumatic fractures, i.e. patients with established osteoporosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 118 Hong Kong postmenopausal Chinese women aged 50 to 75 with low-energy fracture at distal radius (Colles' fracture) were recruited for BMD measurement at lumbar spine and non-dominant hip using Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). 47 women with BMD T-score below -2 SD at either side were identified as patients with established osteoporosis and then randomized into Alendronate group (n = 22) and placebo control group (n = 25) for BMD measurement at spine and hip using DXA and distal radius of the non-fracture side by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and bone turnover markers, including bone forming alkaline phosphatase (BALP) and bone resorbing urinary Deoxypyridinoline (DPD). All measurements were repeated at 6 and 12 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Alendronate treatment significantly increased BMD, more in weight-bearing skeletons (5.1% at spine and 2.5% at hip) than in non-weight bearing skeleton (0.9% at distal radius) after 12 months treatment. Spine T-score was significant improved in Alendronate group (p < 0.01) (from -2.2 to -1.9) but not in control placebo group. The Alendronate treatment effect was explained by significant suppression of bone turnover.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>12 months Alendronate treatment was effective to increase BMD at both axial and appendicular skeletons in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis.</p

The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring <30 days after within-trial myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with fixed-effects meta-analyses. In up to 17 trials with 132 538 participants conducted over 4.3 [weighted standard deviation (SD) 1.4] years, statin therapy reduced LDL-cholesterol by 0.97 mmol/L (weighted SD 0.38 mmol/L). Statins reduced the numbers of patients experiencing non-fatal HF hospitalization (1344/66 238 vs. 1498/66 330; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.97) and the composite HF outcome (1234/57 734 vs. 1344/57 836; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not HF death (213/57 734 vs. 220/57 836; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17). The effect of statins on first non-fatal HF hospitalization was similar whether this was preceded by MI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.11) or not (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98).In primary- and secondary-prevention trials, statins modestly reduced the risks of non-fatal HF hospitalization and a composite of non-fatal HF hospitalization and HF death with no demonstrable difference in risk reduction between those who suffered an MI or not

Antagonism of the discriminative effects of ethylketazocine, cyclazocine, and nalorphine in macaques

dl -Ethylketazocine (EKC, 0.01 mg/kg) and saline were established as discriminative stimuli for food-maintained responding in macaque monkeys. Thirty consecutive presses on a right or left lever were reinforced with food, contingent on whether EKC or saline were administered before the session. For tests of antagonism, naltrexone, or UM 979 [( l )-5,9-alpha-dimethyl-2-(3-furylmethyl)-2′-hydroxy-6,7-benzomorphan] was administered concomitantly with EKC, dl -cyclazocine, or nalorphine. Both antagonists blocked completely the EKC discriminative stimulus. The antagonism of the stimulus and rate-altering effects of EKC was surmountable, with considerable intersubject variability in the magnitude of the EKC dose increase required to overcome the blockade. Cyclazocine and nalophine, mixed agonist-antagonist opioids that share stimulus properties with EKC, were also susceptible to antagonism. Naltrexone antagonized completely the EKC stimulus effects of nalorphine; naltrexone and UM 979 antagonized completely the EKC stimulus effects of cyclazocine. Naltrexone antagonism of the cyclazocine stimulus was not surmountable, due to a lack of antagonism of the rate-decreasing effects of high cyclazocine doses.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46433/1/213_2004_Article_BF00555213.pd

Discriminative stimulus effects of etorphine in rhesus monkeys

Two rhesus monkeys were trained to discriminate the IM injection of etorphine (0.001 mg/kg) from saline in a task in which 20 consecutive responses on one of two levers resulted in food delivery. In both monkeys, etorphine (0.0001–0.0018), meperidine (0.1–1.0 mg/kg), morphine (0.1–3.2 mg/kg), and codeine (0.3–3.2) produced dose-related increases in the percentage of total session responses that occurred on the etorphine-appropriate lever. In contrast, ethylketazocine, SKF-10047, and pentazocine, at doses up to and including those that suppressed response rates, produced responses primarily on the saline-appropriate lever. Thus, etorphine-like narcotics, including morphine, have discriminative stimulus effects in rhesus monkeys which can be distinguished from those produced by narcotics with nonmorphine-like actions such as ethylketazocine, SKF-10047, and pentazocine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46422/1/213_2004_Article_BF00431828.pd