12 results match your criteria: "Research Center of Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS-U1153)[Affiliation]"

Evidence synthesis serves an important role to promote informed decision-making in healthcare practice. A key issue of evidence synthesis is the approach to deal with rare adverse events and the methods to address bias of harm effects. Empirical data is essential to help methodologists and statisticians to solve the issues in evidence synthesis of adverse events.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: In evidence synthesis practice, dealing with studies with no cases in both arms has been a tough problem, for which there is no consensus in the research community. In this study, we propose a method to measure the potential impact of studies with no cases for meta-analysis results which we define as harms index (Hi) and benefits index (Bi) as an alternative solution for deciding how to deal with such studies.

Methods: Hi and Bi are defined by the minimal number of cases added to the treatment arm (Hi) or control arm (Bi) of studies with no cases in a meta-analysis that lead to a change of the direction of the estimates or its statistical significance.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Importance: Dry eye is a common clinical manifestation, a leading cause of eye clinic visits, and a significant societal and personal economic burden in the United States. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated estimates of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Network meta-analysis (NMA) of rare events has attracted little attention in the literature. Until recently, networks of interventions with rare events were analyzed using the inverse-variance NMA approach. However, when events are rare the normal approximations made by this model can be poor and effect estimates are potentially biased.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • There is no clear agreement on the best catheter ablation strategy for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), prompting a study to compare different approaches through network meta-analysis.
  • A systematic review of 67 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 10,000 patients revealed that strategies combining pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with other techniques significantly reduced the risk of arrhythmia recurrence compared to PVI alone.
  • The findings suggested that combining PVI with methods like renal denervation and additional ablation lines enhances its effectiveness, while overall safety remains consistent across different strategies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • - The study examines various catheter ablation (CA) strategies for treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) to determine their efficacy and safety, involving data from 43 randomized controlled trials with over 6,700 patients.
  • - Results showed that adding treatments like adjuvant ablation or sympathetic modulation to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) significantly reduced the risk of arrhythmia recurrence compared to PVI with radiofrequency alone, while PVI with radiofrequency was better than non-PVI strategies.
  • - No major safety differences were found among the various CA strategies, indicating that while different PVI methods are generally similar in effectiveness, combining them with additional treatments could enhance results for patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient ablation strategy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

When interpreting the relative effects from a network meta-analysis (NMA), researchers are usually aware of the potential limitations that may render the results for some comparisons less useful or meaningless. In the presence of sufficient and appropriate data, some of these limitations (eg, risk of bias, small-study effects, publication bias) can be taken into account in the statistical analysis. Very often, though, the necessary data for applying these methods are missing and data limitations cannot be formally integrated into ranking.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF