Individual participant data

个人参与者数据
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:内脏利什曼病(VL)是一种寄生虫病,每年估计发生30000例新病例。尽管贫血是VL的常见血液学表现,治疗后不同血液学特征的演变仍知之甚少.计划进行个体参与者数据荟萃分析(IPD-MA),以表征VL患者的血液学动力学。
    方法:传染病数据观察站(IDDO)VL数据平台是通过系统检索已发表文献(PROSPERO注册:CRD42021284622)确定的治疗性研究中的IPD的全球存储库。该平台目前将临床试验的数据集标准化为通用数据格式。IDDOVL数据平台中符合纳入资格标准的研究的相应作者和主要研究者被邀请成为IPD-MA协作的一部分。将构建混合效应多变量回归模型,以通过考虑研究地点内的聚类来识别血液学参数的决定因素。
    背景:本IPD-MA符合牛津热带研究伦理委员会(OxTREC)授予IDDO的伦理审查豁免标准,因为该研究包括对现有匿名数据的二次分析(2023年3月29日获得豁免,OxTRECREF:IDDO)。伦理批准由ICMR-Rajendra纪念医学科学研究所伦理委员会批准(信号:RMRI/EC/30/2022),2022年7月4日。这项分析的结果将在会议上传播,IDDO网站和开放获取期刊上的同行评审出版物。这项研究的结果对于区域和全球一级的控制方案至关重要,政策制定者和团体开发新的VL治疗。
    CRD42021284622。
    Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a parasitic disease with an estimated 30 000 new cases occurring annually. Despite anaemia being a common haematological manifestation of VL, the evolution of different haematological characteristics following treatment remains poorly understood. An individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is planned to characterise the haematological dynamics in patients with VL.
    The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) VL data platform is a global repository of IPD from therapeutic studies identified through a systematic search of published literature (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021284622). The platform currently holds datasets from clinical trials standardised to a common data format. Corresponding authors and principal investigators of the studies indexed in the IDDO VL data platform meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion were invited to be part of the collaborative IPD-MA. Mixed-effects multivariable regression models will be constructed to identify determinants of haematological parameters by taking clustering within study sites into account.
    This IPD-MA meets the criteria for waiver of ethical review as defined by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC) granted to IDDO, as the research consists of secondary analysis of existing anonymised data (exempt granted on 29 March 2023, OxTREC REF: IDDO). Ethics approval was granted by the ICMR-Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences ethics committee (letter no.: RMRI/EC/30/2022) on 4 July 2022. The results of this analysis will be disseminated at conferences, the IDDO website and peer-reviewed publications in open-access journals. The findings of this research will be critically important for control programmes at regional and global levels, policymakers and groups developing new VL treatments.
    CRD42021284622.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    随机试验的个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析被认为是评估参与者水平治疗效果调节剂的可靠方法,但可能无法充分利用现有数据。传统上,一次探索一个协变量的效果修饰符,这导致了治疗-协变量相互作用的证据可能是由于来自不同的混淆,相关协变量。我们旨在评估IPD荟萃分析中估计治疗-协变量相互作用时的当前实践,特别关注模型中其他协变量的参与。我们回顾了100个随机试验的IPD荟萃分析,发表于2015年至2020年,评估了至少一种治疗-协变量相互作用。我们确定了四种处理其他协变量的方法:(1)单相互作用模型(未调整):不包括其他协变量(57/100IPD荟萃分析);(2)单相互作用模型(调整):调整至少一个附加协变量的主要作用(35/100);(3)多相互作用模型:调整治疗和附加协变量之间的至少一个双向相互作用(3/100)之间的相互作用(3-4)附加协变量和潜在效应修饰符(5/100)。IPD没有得到最大程度的利用。在示例数据集中,我们演示了这些方法如何导致不同的结论。研究人员在评估IPD荟萃分析中的相互作用时,应调整其他协变量,前提是他们调整其主要效应,这已经被广泛推荐。Further,他们应该考虑更复杂的方法是否可以提供更好的信息,说明谁可能从治疗中受益最大,改善患者选择和治疗政策和实践。
    Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Preprint
    观察数据提供了医学中宝贵的现实世界信息,但是需要某些方法论上的考虑来得出因果估计。在这次系统审查中,我们评估了2009年,2014年和2019年发表的旨在评估医学因果关系的个体水平患者数据荟萃分析(IPD-MA)的方法学和报告质量.我们筛选了超过16,000个标题和摘要,在167篇被认为可能符合条件的文章中,审查了45篇全文,并将29项纳入分析。不幸的是,我们发现因果方法很少被实施,和报告一般较差的研究。具体来说,29篇文章中只有3篇使用了准实验方法,没有研究使用G方法来调整时变混杂因素。为了解决这些问题,我们建议医生和方法学家之间加强合作,以确保因果方法在IPD-MA中得到正确实施。此外,我们提出了使用因果方法的IPD-MA报告指南的建议清单。该清单可以改善报告,从而潜在地提高IPD-MA的质量和可信度,这可以被认为是卫生政策最有价值的证据来源之一。
    Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    世界卫生组织推荐给婴儿接种肺炎球菌结合疫苗(PCV)。关于不同肺炎球菌疫苗的免疫原性和功效差异的证据参差不齐。
    在本系统综述和网络荟萃分析中,我们搜查了Cochrane图书馆,Embase,全球卫生,Medline,clinicaltrials.gov和试验搜索。谁。截至2023年2月17日,没有语言限制。如果他们提供了比较2岁以下幼儿的头对头随机试验中PCV7,PCV10或PCV13免疫原性的数据,并提供在初次疫苗接种系列或加强剂量后至少一个时间点的免疫原性数据。通过Cochrane的证据缺失导致的偏差风险工具和使用Egger检验的比较调整漏斗图评估发布偏差。向出版物作者和/或相关疫苗制造商要求个体参与者水平的数据。结果包括血清型特异性IgG的几何平均比(GMR)和血清感染的相对风险(RR)。血清感染定义为每个个体在初次疫苗接种后系列时间点和加强剂量之间的抗体升高。推测亚临床感染的证据。血清功效定义为血清感染的RR。我们还估计了启动后一个月IgG的GMR与加强剂量时血清感染的RR之间的关系。协议注册到PROSPERO,IDCRD42019124580。
    来自六大洲38个国家的47项研究符合资格。28和12项具有可用数据的研究包括在免疫原性和血清功效分析中,分别。比较PCV13与PCV10的GMR有利于PCV13的血清型4,9V,在初次疫苗接种系列后1个月和23F,与PCV13的1.14-至1.54-倍显著更高的IgG应答。PCV13血清型4、6B的加强剂量前血清感染的风险较低,9V,18C和23F比PCV10。大多数血清型和两种结果均存在显着的异质性和不一致性。初次接种后抗体升高2倍与血清感染风险降低54%相关(RR0.46,95%CI0.23-0.96)。
    在PCV13和PCV10之间的免疫原性和血清功效方面发现血清型特异性差异。疫苗接种后较高的抗体反应与随后感染的较低风险相关。这些发现可用于比较PCV和优化疫苗接种策略。
    NIHR卫生技术评估计划。
    UNASSIGNED: Vaccination of infants with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) is recommended by the World Health Organization. Evidence is mixed regarding the differences in immunogenicity and efficacy of the different pneumococcal vaccines.
    UNASSIGNED: In this systematic-review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, Global Health, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov and trialsearch.who.int up to February 17, 2023 with no language restrictions. Studies were eligible if they presented data comparing the immunogenicity of either PCV7, PCV10 or PCV13 in head-to-head randomised trials of young children under 2 years of age, and provided immunogenicity data for at least one time point after the primary vaccination series or the booster dose. Publication bias was assessed via Cochrane\'s Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence tool and comparison-adjusted funnel plots with Egger\'s test. Individual participant level data were requested from publication authors and/or relevant vaccine manufacturers. Outcomes included the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serotype-specific IgG and the relative risk (RR) of seroinfection. Seroinfection was defined for each individual as a rise in antibody between the post-primary vaccination series time point and the booster dose, evidence of presumed subclinical infection. Seroefficacy was defined as the RR of seroinfection. We also estimated the relationship between the GMR of IgG one month after priming and the RR of seroinfection by the time of the booster dose. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42019124580.
    UNASSIGNED: 47 studies were eligible from 38 countries across six continents. 28 and 12 studies with data available were included in immunogenicity and seroefficacy analyses, respectively. GMRs comparing PCV13 vs PCV10 favoured PCV13 for serotypes 4, 9V, and 23F at 1 month after primary vaccination series, with 1.14- to 1.54- fold significantly higher IgG responses with PCV13. Risk of seroinfection prior to the time of booster dose was lower for PCV13 for serotype 4, 6B, 9V, 18C and 23F than for PCV10. Significant heterogeneity and inconsistency were present for most serotypes and for both outcomes. Two-fold higher antibody after primary vaccination was associated with a 54% decrease in risk of seroinfection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.96).
    UNASSIGNED: Serotype-specific differences were found in immunogenicity and seroefficacy between PCV13 and PCV10. Higher antibody response after vaccination was associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection. These findings could be used to compare PCVs and optimise vaccination strategies.
    UNASSIGNED: The NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:比较双气囊与单气囊导管引产的证据存在分歧。我们旨在使用个体参与者数据比较双球囊导管与单球囊导管的疗效和安全性。
    方法:搜索OvidMEDLINE,Embase,OvidEmcare,CINAHLPlus,Scopus,和clinicaltrials.gov进行了从2019年3月至2021年4月13日发表的随机对照试验。早期的试验是从Cochrane评论中确定的机械引产方法。比较双气囊和单气囊导尿管在单胎妊娠引产的随机对照试验是合格的。从试验研究者那里寻求参与者水平的数据,并进行个体参与者数据荟萃分析。主要结果是达到的阴道分娩率,孕产妇不良结局的复合指标和围产期不良结局的复合指标.我们使用了两阶段随机效应模型。从意向治疗的角度分析数据。
    结果:在8项符合条件的随机对照试验中,三个共享个人层面的数据,共有689名参与者,双球囊导管组344名女性和单球囊导管组345名女性。双气囊导管和单气囊导管的阴道分娩率差异无统计学意义(相对危险度[RR]0.93,95%置信区间[CI]0.86-1.00,p=0.050;I20%;中等确定性证据)。两组围产期结局(RR0.81,95%CI0.54-1.21,p=0.691;I20%;中度确定性证据)和产妇综合结局(RR0.65,95%CI0.15-2.87,p=0.571;I255.46%;低确定性证据)均无显著差异。
    结论:单球囊导管在阴道分娩率和孕产妇及围产期安全结局方面至少与双球囊导管相当。
    Evidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data.
    A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective.
    Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15-2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low-certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups.
    Single-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:细菌性阴道病(BV)增加早产(PTD)风险,但治疗试验显示,在预防PTD方面效果参差不齐.
    目标:确定,使用个人参与者数据(IPD),妊娠期间BV治疗是否减少PTD或延长分娩时间。
    方法:Cochrane系统评价(2013),MEDLINE,EMBASE,日记搜索,并搜索(2013年1月至2022年9月)(“细菌性阴道病和妊娠”)(i)clinicaltrials.gov;(ii)Cochrane对照试验中央登记册;(iii)世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台门户;和(iv)科学网(“细菌性阴道病”)。
    方法:将无症状妊娠合并BV的个体随机接受抗生素或对照治疗的研究,测量分娩妊娠。提取来自原始数据文件。使用Cochrane工具评估偏差风险。分析使用“一步”逻辑和考克斯随机效应模型,随机化时调整妊娠和PTD病史;I2异质性。亚组分析测试了与治疗的相互作用。在敏感性分析中,不提供IPD的研究是通过“多个随机供体热甲板”归因纳入的,使用IPD研究作为捐赠者。
    结果:共有121篇参考文献(96项研究),23项符合条件的试验(11,979名参与者);13项研究(6915名参与者)提供IPD;12项(6115)纳入。对9名(4887名参与者)未提供IPD的结果进行估算。与安慰剂相比,甲硝唑和克林霉素的PTD的赔率为1.00(95%CI0.84,1.17),I2=62%,和0.59(95%CI0.42,0.82),I2=0之前;和0.95(95%CI0.81,1.11),I2=59%,和0.90(95%CI:0.72,1.12),I2=0,归因后。两种治疗的分娩时间与无效时间均无差异。包括估算的IPD,没有证据表明这两种药物在早期给药时更有效,或者有PTD病史的人。
    结论:克林霉素,但不是甲硝唑,在提供IPD的研究中有益,但是在从缺失的IPD研究中输入数据后,在怀孕期间治疗BV并没有减少PTD,也不能延长怀孕时间,在任何亚组或在妊娠早期开始时。
    Bacterial vaginosis (BV) increases preterm delivery (PTD) risk, but treatment trials showed mixed results in preventing PTD.
    Determine, using individual participant data (IPD), whether BV treatment during pregnancy reduced PTD or prolonged time-to-delivery.
    Cochrane Systematic Review (2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, journal searches, and searches (January 2013-September 2022) (\"bacterial vaginosis AND pregnancy\") of (i) clinicaltrials.gov; (ii) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; (iii) World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal; and (iv) Web of Science (\"bacterial vaginosis\").
    Studies randomising asymptomatic pregnant individuals with BV to antibiotics or control, measuring delivery gestation. Extraction was from original data files. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Analysis used \"one-step\" logistic and Cox random effect models, adjusting gestation at randomisation and PTD history; heterogeneity by I2 . Subgroup analysis tested interactions with treatment. In sensitivity analyses, studies not providing IPD were incorporated by \"multiple random-donor hot-deck\" imputation, using IPD studies as donors.
    There were 121 references (96 studies) with 23 eligible trials (11,979 participants); 13 studies (6915 participants) provided IPD; 12 (6115) were incorporated. Results from 9 (4887 participants) not providing IPD were imputed. Odds ratios for PTD for metronidazole and clindamycin versus placebo were 1.00 (95% CI 0.84, 1.17), I2  = 62%, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.42, 0.82), I2  = 0 before; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.81, 1.11), I2  = 59%, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.12), I2  = 0, after imputation. Time-to-delivery did not differ from null with either treatment. Including imputed IPD, there was no evidence that either drug was more effective when administered earlier, or among those with a PTD history.
    Clindamycin, but not metronidazole, was beneficial in studies providing IPD, but after imputing data from missing IPD studies, treatment of BV during pregnancy did not reduce PTD, nor prolong pregnancy, in any subgroup or when started earlier in gestation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    未经证实:三分之一的青少年肌阵挛性癫痫(JME)患者具有耐药性。四分之三的人在实现无癫痫发作后尝试撤回抗癫痫药物(ASM)时癫痫发作复发。目前无法预测谁可能会产生耐药性并安全退出治疗。我们旨在确定耐药性和癫痫发作复发的预测因子,以便对JME患者的治疗结果进行个性化预测。
    UNASSIGNED:我们基于EMBASE和PubMed的系统搜索进行了个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析-最新更新于2021年3月11日-包括前瞻性和回顾性观察性研究,报告了诊断为JME的患者的治疗结果和至少一年随访后的可用癫痫发作结果数据。我们邀请作者分享标准化的IPD,以使用多变量逻辑回归确定耐药性的预测因素。我们排除了伪抗性个体。试图撤回ASM的子集被纳入ASM撤回后癫痫发作复发的多变量比例风险分析。该研究已在开放科学框架(OSF;https://osf.io/b9zjc/)上注册。
    未经ASSIGNED:我们的搜索产生了1641篇文章;53是合格的,其中24项研究的作者同意通过共享IPD进行合作。使用来自2518名JME患者的数据,我们发现了九种独立的耐药性预测因子:三种癫痫发作类型,精神病合并症,月经性癫痫,癫痫样病灶,种族,CAE的历史,癫痫家族史,癫痫持续状态,和高热惊厥.我们的多变量模型的内部-外部交叉验证显示受试者工作特征曲线下的面积为0·70(95CI0·68-0·72)。ASM戒断后癫痫发作的复发(n=368)由戒断开始时的较早年龄预测,更短的无癫痫发作间隔和更多当前使用的ASM,导致平均内部-外部交叉验证一致性统计量为0·70(95CI0·68-0·73)。
    UNASSIGNED:我们能够预测和验证JME患者的临床相关个性化治疗结果。个性化预测可以作为列线图和基于Web的工具访问。
    未经批准:明方。
    UNASSIGNED: A third of people with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) are drug-resistant. Three-quarters have a seizure relapse when attempting to withdraw anti-seizure medication (ASM) after achieving seizure-freedom. It is currently impossible to predict who is likely to become drug-resistant and safely withdraw treatment. We aimed to identify predictors of drug resistance and seizure recurrence to allow for individualised prediction of treatment outcomes in people with JME.
    UNASSIGNED: We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis based on a systematic search in EMBASE and PubMed - last updated on March 11, 2021 - including prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting on treatment outcomes of people diagnosed with JME and available seizure outcome data after a minimum one-year follow-up. We invited authors to share standardised IPD to identify predictors of drug resistance using multivariable logistic regression. We excluded pseudo-resistant individuals. A subset who attempted to withdraw ASM was included in a multivariable proportional hazards analysis on seizure recurrence after ASM withdrawal. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/b9zjc/).
    UNASSIGNED: Our search yielded 1641 articles; 53 were eligible, of which the authors of 24 studies agreed to collaborate by sharing IPD. Using data from 2518 people with JME, we found nine independent predictors of drug resistance: three seizure types, psychiatric comorbidities, catamenial epilepsy, epileptiform focality, ethnicity, history of CAE, family history of epilepsy, status epilepticus, and febrile seizures. Internal-external cross-validation of our multivariable model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0·70 (95%CI 0·68-0·72). Recurrence of seizures after ASM withdrawal (n = 368) was predicted by an earlier age at the start of withdrawal, shorter seizure-free interval and more currently used ASMs, resulting in an average internal-external cross-validation concordance-statistic of 0·70 (95%CI 0·68-0·73).
    UNASSIGNED: We were able to predict and validate clinically relevant personalised treatment outcomes for people with JME. Individualised predictions are accessible as nomograms and web-based tools.
    UNASSIGNED: MING fonds.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    六十多年来,人们从各种角度研究了心率变异性(HRV)作为疾病和死亡率风险预测指标的指标。本综合荟萃分析的目的是检查八种不同的HRV参数,以确定它们与全因死亡率和心脏死亡率的关系。总共包括32项研究和两个单独的参与者数据集(IPD),包括37个样本和38,008个参与者。较低的HRV参数值是不同年龄段死亡率较高的重要预测因素,性别,大陆,人口和记录长度。大多数检查的参数显示出可比的风险比(HR)。对心率校正的HRV参数的IPD亚分析证实了HRV与全因死亡率之间的强关联。Meta回归显示,从协变量调整研究中提取的HR没有效应修饰。比较5分钟连续差异均方根的最低四分位数(RMSSD)与其他四分位数的综合HR为1.56(95%CI:1.32-1.85)。讨论了HRV测量在预防性设置中的适用性。
    Measures of heart rate variability (HRV) as a predictor of risk of disease and mortality have been investigated from various perspectives for more than six decades. The aim of the present comprehensive meta-analysis is to examine eight different HRV parameters to determine their association with all-cause and cardiac mortality. A total of 32 studies and two individual participant datasets (IPD) with 37 samples and 38,008 participants were included. Lower HRV parameter values were significant predictors of higher mortality across different ages, sex, continents, populations and recording lengths. Most of the examined parameters showed comparable hazard ratios (HR). IPD sub-analysis for heart rate corrected HRV parameters confirmed the strong association between HRV and all-cause mortality. Meta-regressions revealed no effect modifier for HRs extracted from covariate-adjusted studies. Sub-analyses of studies comparing the lowest quartile of 5-min root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) vs. the other quartiles yielded a combined HR of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.32-1.85). The applicability of HRV measurement in preventive settings is discussed.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    卵巢刺激宫腔内人工授精(IUI-OS)是无法解释的不孕症的一线治疗方法。促性腺激素,来曲唑和柠檬酸氯米芬(CC)是IUI-OS期间常用的药物,并在多个汇总数据荟萃分析中进行了比较,具有实质性异质性,没有对事件发生时间结果的分析。个体参与者数据荟萃分析(IPD-MA)被认为是证据综合的黄金标准,因为它可以通过获得IPD来抵消个体研究报告的不足。并允许对治疗-协变量相互作用进行分析,以确定从特定治疗中受益最大的夫妇。
    我们进行了这种IPD-MA,以比较促性腺激素与促性腺激素刺激卵巢的有效性和安全性,来曲唑和CC,并探讨IUI夫妇中重要基线特征的治疗-协变量相互作用。
    我们搜索了包括MEDLINE在内的电子数据库,EMBASE,中部,CINAHL,和PsycINFO从成立到2021年6月28日。我们纳入了比较IUI-OS与促性腺激素的随机对照试验(RCT),来曲唑和CC在不明原因不孕症夫妇中的应用。我们联系了符合条件的RCT的作者分享IPD,并建立了IUIIPD-MA合作。主要有效性结局是活产,主要安全性结局是多胎妊娠。次要结果是其他生殖结果,包括导致活产的受孕时间。我们进行了一个阶段的随机效应IPD-MA。
    22个符合条件的RCT中有7个(31.8%)提供了2495对夫妇的IPD(参与22个RCT的3997对夫妇中的62.4%),其中2411人患有无法解释的不孕症,并包括在此IPD-MA中。六个RCT(n=1511)比较了促性腺激素与CC,和一个(n=900)比较促性腺激素,来曲唑和CC。中等确定性证据表明,与CC相比,促性腺激素增加了活产率(6个随机对照试验,2058名妇女,RR1.30,95%CI1.12-1.51,I2=26%)。低确定性证据表明,与CC相比,促性腺激素也可能增加多胎妊娠率(6个RCT,2058名妇女,RR2.17,95%CI1.33-3.54,I2=69%)。多胎妊娠的异质性可以通过促性腺激素起始剂量和取消标准的选择来解释。对促性腺激素低起始剂量(≤75IU)的RCT进行的事后敏感性分析证实,与CC相比,活产率增加(5个RCT,1457名妇女,RR1.26,95%CI1.05-1.51),但是仅对具有更严格取消标准的随机对照试验的分析显示,关于活产的证据不确定(4个随机对照试验,1238名妇女,RR1.15,95%CI0.94-1.41)。对于多胎妊娠,两项敏感性分析均显示促性腺激素和CC之间的结果不确定(RR0.94,95%CI0.45-1.96;RR0.81,95%CI0.32-2.03).中度确定性证据表明,与CC相比,促性腺激素减少了导致活产的受孕时间(6个RCT,2058名妇女,HR1.37,95%CI1.15-1.63,I2=22%)。没有关于治疗协变量的有力证据(女性年龄,发现BMI或原发性与继发性不孕症)相互作用。
    在经历IUI-OS的无法解释的不孕症夫妇中,与CC相比,促性腺激素增加了活产的机会并减少了受孕时间,以更高的多胎妊娠率为代价,当不区分取消标准或起始剂量的策略时。不同年龄女性的治疗效果似乎没有差异,BMI或原发性与继发性不孕症。在现代实践中,较低的起始剂量和更严格的取消标准已经到位,不同药物的有效性和安全性似乎都可以接受,因此,干预的可用性,成本和患者偏好应在临床决策中考虑。因为与来曲唑比较的证据是基于一个提供IPD的RCT,需要进一步的RCT比较来曲唑和其他干预措施对无法解释的不孕症的影响.
    Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment-covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment.
    We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI.
    We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA.
    Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, I2 = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, I2 = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32-2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63, I2 = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment-covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found.
    In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients\' preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    中风康复干预通常是个性化的,以满足个人的需求,目标,和基于来自汇总随机对照试验(RCT)数据和荟萃综合的证据的挑战。个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析可以更好地指导精确康复方法的发展,量化治疗反应,同时调整混杂因素并减少生态偏差。
    我们探索了言语和语言治疗(SLT)干预频率(天/周)之间的关联,强度(h/周),以及不同年龄的剂量(总SLT小时)和语言结果,性别,失语症严重程度,通过对RELEASE数据库进行预先指定的亚组网络荟萃分析和慢性亚组。
    MEDLINE,EMBASE,并对试验注册进行了系统搜索(2015年9月开始),包括10个与中风相关的失语症的IPD。我们提取了人口统计,中风,失语症,SLT,和偏差数据的风险。整体语言能力,听觉理解,功能沟通结果标准化。一个阶段,随机效应,网络元分析方法将IPD过滤为单个最优模型,从基线到第一次干预后随访检查SLT方案和语言恢复,对先验识别的协变量进行调整。数据按年龄二分类(/>65岁),失语症严重程度(基于语言结果的轻度-中度/中度-重度中值),慢性(/>3个月),和性别亚组。我们报告了均值和95%置信区间的估计值。在相对方差较高(>50%)的情况下,报告了结果的完整性。
    分析了959个IPD(25个RCT)。对于工作年龄的参与者,与基线相比,语言增益最大的发生在中等至高强度SLT(功能性交流3~4小时/周;总体语言和理解>9小时/周);年龄较大的参与者除听觉理解(>9小时/周)外,最大的增益发生在低强度SLT(2小时/周).对于这两个年龄组,与最佳语言增益相关的SLT频率和剂量相似。参与者在发病后3个月表现出在低强度/中等剂量下SLT的最大整体语言增益(2SLT-h/周;20至50h);对于那些>3个月,卒中后最大获益与中等强度/高剂量SLT(3-4SLT-h/周;50小时)相关.对于中重度参与者,4SLT-天/周赋予了跨结果的最大语言收益,只有4个SLT天/周观察到听觉理解增益;轻度-中度参与者最大的功能沟通增益与相似的频率(4个SLT天/周)和最大的整体语言增益相关,具有更高频率的SLT(6天/周)。与女性相比,男性的最大收获与中等强度(功能交流;每周3至4小时/周)或高强度(整体语言和听觉理解;(每周>9小时/周)的SLT相关,而女性的最大收获与低强度SLT相关(<2SLT-h/周)。亚组之间的一致性也很明显;总体语言增益最大与20到50SLT-h相关;当SLT>9h超过4天/周时,通常观察到听觉理解增益。
    我们观察到大多数亚组的治疗反应,听觉理解,和功能性交流语言收益。对一些人来说,最大治疗反应随不同的SLT频率而变化,强度,和剂量。在观察到差异的地方,工作年龄,慢性,轻度-中度,和男性亚组经历了他们最大的语言增益与高频/强度SLT。相比之下,年长的,中度-严重受损,失语症发病后3个月内的女性亚组对低强度SLT的获益最大。可接受性,临床,以及基于年龄的精准失语症康复方法的成本效益,性别,失语症严重程度,和慢性性应该在未来的临床随机对照试验中进行评估。
    Stroke rehabilitation interventions are routinely personalized to address individuals\' needs, goals, and challenges based on evidence from aggregated randomized controlled trials (RCT) data and meta-syntheses. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses may better inform the development of precision rehabilitation approaches, quantifying treatment responses while adjusting for confounders and reducing ecological bias.
    We explored associations between speech and language therapy (SLT) interventions frequency (days/week), intensity (h/week), and dosage (total SLT-hours) and language outcomes for different age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity subgroups by undertaking prespecified subgroup network meta-analyses of the RELEASE database.
    MEDLINE, EMBASE, and trial registrations were systematically searched (inception-Sept2015) for RCTs, including ⩾ 10 IPD on stroke-related aphasia. We extracted demographic, stroke, aphasia, SLT, and risk of bias data. Overall-language ability, auditory comprehension, and functional communication outcomes were standardized. A one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered IPD into a single optimal model, examining SLT regimen and language recovery from baseline to first post-intervention follow-up, adjusting for covariates identified a-priori. Data were dichotomized by age (⩽/> 65 years), aphasia severity (mild-moderate/ moderate-severe based on language outcomes\' median value), chronicity (⩽/> 3 months), and sex subgroups. We reported estimates of means and 95% confidence intervals. Where relative variance was high (> 50%), results were reported for completeness.
    959 IPD (25 RCTs) were analyzed. For working-age participants, greatest language gains from baseline occurred alongside moderate to high-intensity SLT (functional communication 3-to-4 h/week; overall-language and comprehension > 9 h/week); older participants\' greatest gains occurred alongside low-intensity SLT (⩽ 2 h/week) except for auditory comprehension (> 9 h/week). For both age-groups, SLT-frequency and dosage associated with best language gains were similar. Participants ⩽ 3 months post-onset demonstrated greatest overall-language gains for SLT at low intensity/moderate dosage (⩽ 2 SLT-h/week; 20-to-50 h); for those > 3 months, post-stroke greatest gains were associated with moderate-intensity/high-dosage SLT (3-4 SLT-h/week; ⩾ 50 hours). For moderate-severe participants, 4 SLT-days/week conferred the greatest language gains across outcomes, with auditory comprehension gains only observed for ⩾ 4 SLT-days/week; mild-moderate participants\' greatest functional communication gains were associated with similar frequency (⩾ 4 SLT-days/week) and greatest overall-language gains with higher frequency SLT (⩾ 6 days/weekly). Males\' greatest gains were associated with SLT of moderate (functional communication; 3-to-4 h/weekly) or high intensity (overall-language and auditory comprehension; (> 9 h/weekly) compared to females for whom the greatest gains were associated with lower-intensity SLT (< 2 SLT-h/weekly). Consistencies across subgroups were also evident; greatest overall-language gains were associated with 20-to-50 SLT-h in total; auditory comprehension gains were generally observed when SLT > 9 h over ⩾ 4 days/week.
    We observed a treatment response in most subgroups\' overall-language, auditory comprehension, and functional communication language gains. For some, the maximum treatment response varied in association with different SLT-frequency, intensity, and dosage. Where differences were observed, working-aged, chronic, mild-moderate, and male subgroups experienced their greatest language gains alongside high-frequency/intensity SLT. In contrast, older, moderate-severely impaired, and female subgroups within 3 months of aphasia onset made their greatest gains for lower-intensity SLT. The acceptability, clinical, and cost effectiveness of precision aphasia rehabilitation approaches based on age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity should be evaluated in future clinical RCTs.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号