“statcheck”:Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses.

We present the R package and web app statcheck to automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies in primary studies and meta‐analyses. Previous research has shown a high prevalence of reported p‐values that are inconsistent ‐ meaning a re‐calculated p‐value, based on the reported test statistic and degrees of freedom, does not match the author‐reported p‐value. Such inconsistencies affect the reproducibility and evidential value of published findings. The tool statcheck can help researchers to identify statistical inconsistencies so that they may correct them. In this paper, we provide an overview of the prevalence and consequences of statistical reporting inconsistencies. We also discuss the tool statcheck in more detail and give an example of how it can be used in a meta‐analysis. We end with some recommendations concerning the use of statcheck in meta‐analyses and make a case for better reporting standards of statistical results

MassBuilt: effectiveness of an apprenticeship site-based smoking cessation intervention for unionized building trades workers

Blue-collar workers are difficult to reach and less likely to successfully quit smoking. The objective of this study was to test a training site-based smoking cessation intervention. This study is a randomized-controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention that integrated occupational health concerns and was delivered in collaboration with unions to apprentices at 10 sites (n = 1,213). We evaluated smoking cessation at 1 and 6 months post-intervention. The baseline prevalence of smoking was 41%. We observed significantly higher quit rates in the intervention versus control group (26% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.014) 1 month after the intervention. However, the effects diminished over time so that the difference in quit rate was not significant at 6 month post-intervention (9% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.48). Intervention group members nevertheless reported a significant decrease in smoking intensity (OR = 3.13; 95% CI: 1.55–6.31) at 6 months post-intervention, compared to controls. The study demonstrates the feasibility of delivering an intervention through union apprentice programs. Furthermore, the notably better 1-month quit rate results among intervention members and the greater decrease in smoking intensity among intervention members who continued to smoke underscore the need to develop strategies to help reduce relapse among blue-collar workers who quit smoking

Thoracic dysfunction in whiplash associated disorders: A systematic review

© 2018 Heneghan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Research investigating Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD) has largely focused on the cervical spine yet symptoms can be widespread. Thoracic spine pain prevalence is reported ~66%; perhaps unsurprising given the forceful stretch/eccentric loading of posterior structures of the spine, and the thoracic spine’s contribution to neck mobility/function. Approximately 50% WAD patients develop chronic pain and disability resulting in high levels of societal and healthcare costs. It is time to look beyond the cervical spine to fully understand anatomical dysfunction in WAD and provide new directions for clinical practice and research. Purpose To evaluate the scope and nature of dysfunction in the thoracic region in patients with WAD. Methods A systematic review and data synthesis was conducted according to a pre-defined, registered (PROSPERO, CRD42015026983) and published protocol. All forms of observational study were included. A sensitive topic-based search strategy was designed from inception to 1/06/16. Databases, grey literature and registers were searched using a study population terms and key words derived from scoping search. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third reviewer checked for consistency and clarity. Extracted data included summary data: sample size and characteristics, outcomes, and timescales to reflect disorder state. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were tabulated to allow enabling a semi-qualitative comparison and grouped by outcome across studies. Strength of the overall body of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE. Results Thirty eight studies (n>50,000) which were conducted across a range of countries were included. Few authors responded to requests for further data (5 of 9 contacted). Results were reported in the context of overall quality and were presented for measures of pain or dysfunction and presented, where possible, according to WAD severity and time point post injury. Key findings include: 1) high prevalence of thoracic pain (>60%); higher for those with more severe presentations and in the acute stage, 2) low prevalence of chest pain

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship

Sex disparities in attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women in sub-Saharan Africa: a socio-ecological analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) has been suggested as one of the prominent predictor of IPVAW. In this study, we take a step back from individual-level variables and examine relationship between societal-level measures and sex differences in attitudes towards IPVAW.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used meta-analytic procedure to synthesize the results of most recent data sets available from Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of 17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa conducted between 2003 and 2007. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for all countries. Test of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression were also carried out.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women were twice as likely to justify wife beating than men (pooled OR = 1.97; 95% CI 1.53- 2.53) with statistically significant heterogeneity. The magnitude in sex disparities in attitudes towards IPVAW increased with increasing percentage of men practicing polygamy in each country. Furthermore, magnitude in sex disparities in attitudes towards IPVAW decreased monotonically with increasing adult male and female literacy rate, gender development index, gross domestic product and human development index.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis has provided evidence that women were more likely to justify IPVAW than men in sub-Saharan Africa. Our results revealed that country's socio-economic factors may be associated with sex differential in attitudes towards IPVAW.</p

Male tobacco smoke load and non-lung cancer mortality associations in Massachusetts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Different methods exist to estimate smoking attributable cancer mortality rates (Peto and Ezzati methods, as examples). However, the smoking attributable estimates using these methods cannot be generalized to all population sub-groups. A simpler method has recently been developed that can be adapted and applied to different population sub-groups. This study assessed cumulative tobacco smoke damage (smoke load)/non-lung cancer mortality associations across time from 1979 to 2003 among all Massachusetts males and ages 30–74 years, using this novel methodology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Annual lung cancer death rates were used as smoke load bio-indices, and age-adjusted lung/all other (non-lung) cancer death rates were analyzed with linear regression approach. Non-lung cancer death rates include all cancer deaths excluding lung. Smoking-attributable-fractions (SAFs) for the latest period (year 2003) were estimated as: 1-(estimated unexposed cancer death rate/observed rate).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Male lung and non-lung cancer death rates have declined steadily since 1992. Lung and non-lung cancer death rates were tightly and steeply associated across years. The slopes of the associations analyzed were 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35–2.04, r = 0.90), and 1.36 (CI 1.14–1.58, r = 0.94) without detected autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.8). The lung/non-lung cancer death rate associations suggest that all-sites cancer death rate SAFs in year 2003 were 73% (Sensitivity Range [SR] 61–82%) for all ages and 74% (SR 61–82%) for ages 30–74 years.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The strong lung/non-lung cancer death rate associations suggest that tobacco smoke load may be responsible for most prematurely fatal cancers at both lung and non-lung sites. The present method estimates are greater than the earlier estimates. Therefore, tobacco control may reduce cancer death rates more than previously noted.</p

The relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Northern Europe and North America. A commentary on differences between the conclusions reached by two recent reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is an alternative for smokers who want to quit but require nicotine. Reliable evidence on its effects is needed. Boffetta et al. and ourselves recently reviewed the evidence on cancer, based on Scandinavian and US studies. Boffetta et al. claimed a significant 60–80% increase for oropharyngeal, oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and a non-significant 20% increase for lung cancer, data for other cancers being "too sparse". We found increases less than 15% for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer, and a significant 36% increase for oropharyngeal cancer, which disappeared in recent studies. We found no association with stomach, bladder and all cancers combined, using data as extensive as that for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer. We explain these differences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For those cancers Boffetta et al. considered, we compared the methods, studies and risk estimates used in the two reviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One major reason for the difference is our more consistent approach in choosing between study-specific never smoker and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates. Another is our use of derived as well as published estimates. We included more studies, and avoided estimates for data subsets. Boffetta et al. also included some clearly biased or not smoking-adjusted estimates. For pancreatic cancer, their review included significantly increased never smoker estimates in one study and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates in another, omitting a combined estimate in the first study and a never smoker estimate in the second showing no increase. For oesophageal cancer, never smoker results from one study showing a marked increase for squamous cell carcinoma were included, but corresponding results for adenocarcinoma and combined smoker/non-smoker results for both cell types showing no increase were excluded. For oropharyngeal cancer, Boffetta et al. included a markedly elevated estimate that was not smoking-adjusted, and overlooked the lack of association in recent studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When conducting meta-analyses, all relevant data should be used, with clear rules governing the choice between alternative estimates. A systematic meta-analysis using pre-defined procedures and all relevant data gives a lower estimate of cancer risk from smokeless tobacco (probably 1–2% of that from smoking) than does the previous review by Boffetta et al.</p

Methodologies used to estimate tobacco-attributable mortality: a review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One of the most important measures for ascertaining the impact of tobacco on a population is the estimation of the mortality attributable to its use. To measure this, a number of indirect methods of quantification are available, yet there is no consensus as to which furnishes the best information. This study sought to provide a critical overview of the different methods of attribution of mortality due to tobacco consumption.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A search was made in the Medline database until March 2005 in order to obtain papers that addressed the methodology employed for attributing mortality to tobacco use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the total of 7 methods obtained, the most widely used were the prevalence methods, followed by the approach proposed by Peto et al, with the remainder being used in a minority of studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Different methodologies are used to estimate tobacco attributable mortality, but their methodological foundations are quite similar in all. Mainly, they are based on the calculation of proportional attributable fractions. All methods show limitations of one type or another, sometimes common to all methods and sometimes specific.</p