Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03581.x | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Systematic bias in malaria parasite relatedness estimation.
G3 (Bethesda)
January 2025
Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Analytics G5 Unit, Institut Pasteur, Université Paris Cité, Paris 75015, France.
Genetic studies of Plasmodium parasites increasingly feature relatedness estimates. However, various aspects of malaria parasite relatedness estimation are not fully understood. For example, relatedness estimates based on whole-genome-sequence (WGS) data often exceed those based on sparser data types.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFGlobal Epidemiology and Implications of I148M Variant in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
J Clin Exp Hepatol
December 2024
Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Background & Aims: rs738409 variant is a risk factor for onset and progression of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). We aimed to assess its global prevalence, clinical and histological characteristics, and long-term outcomes in patients with MASLD.
Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were searched until December 30, 2023, for observational studies on genotyped adults with MASLD.
Nutrition users' guides: systematic reviews part 1 -structured guide for methodological assessment, interpretation and application of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of non-randomised nutritional epidemiology studies.
BMJ Nutr Prev Health
August 2024
Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Due to the challenges of conducting randomised controlled trials (randomised trials) of dietary interventions, evidence in nutrition often comes from non-randomised (observational) studies of nutritional exposures-called nutritional epidemiology studies. When using systematic reviews of such studies to advise patients or populations on optimal dietary habits, users of the evidence (eg, healthcare professionals such as clinicians, health service and policy workers) should first evaluate the rigour (validity) and utility (applicability) of the systematic review. Issues in making this judgement include whether the review addressed a sensible question; included an exhaustive literature search; was scrupulous in the selection of studies and the collection of data; and presented results in a useful manner.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNutrition Users' Guides: RCTs Part 2 - structured guide for interpreting and applying study results from randomised controlled trials on therapy or prevention questions.
BMJ Nutr Prev Health
August 2024
Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
This article continues from a prior commentary on evaluating the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials addressing nutritional interventions. Having provided a synopsis of the risk of bias issues, we now address how to understand trial results, including the interpretation of best estimates of effect and the corresponding precision (eg, 95% CIs), as well as the applicability of the evidence to patients based on their unique circumstances (eg, patients' values and preferences when trading off potential desirable and undesirable health outcomes and indicators (eg, cholesterol), and the potential burden and cost of an intervention). Authors can express the estimates of effect for health outcomes and indicators in relative terms (relative risks, relative risk reductions, OR or HRs)-measures that are generally consistent across populations-and absolute terms (risk differences)-measures that are more intuitive to clinicians and patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNutrition users' guides: RCTs part 1 - structured guide for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials that address therapy or prevention questions.
BMJ Nutr Prev Health
August 2024
Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
The purpose of this article, part 1 of 2 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is to provide readers (eg, clinicians, patients, health service and policy decision-makers) of the nutrition literature structured guidance on interpreting RCTs. Evaluation of a given RCT involves several considerations, including the potential for risk of bias, the assessment of estimates of effect and their corresponding precision, and the applicability of the evidence to one's patient. Risk of bias refers to flaws in the design or conduct of a study that may lead to a deviation from measuring the underlying true effect of an intervention.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!