Bias

偏置
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在以前的研究中,偏倚风险(RoB)评估的审阅者间可靠性缺乏共识。重要的是分析这些分歧,以提高RoB评估的可重复性。该研究的目的是评估高血压领域多项Cochrane综述中纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)的RoB评估中存在分歧的频率和原因。
    方法:采用横断面研究。我们从ARCHIE检索了高血压领域的多个Cochrane综述中包含的所有RCT。提取了RoB评估的结果,并分析了协议的分布和分歧的可能原因。
    结果:本研究纳入了26篇Cochrane综述。在一项以上的Cochrane审查中,共有78项RCT出现。协议级别从域到域不等。“结果评估致盲”显示出相当高的一致性(94.9%),而“结果数据不完整”,“选择性结果报告”和“其他偏见来源”显示中等程度的一致性(74.6%,79.2%和75.6%,分别)。然而,“分配隐藏”的域,“随机序列生成”和“参与者和人员致盲”显示出低水平的一致性(24.4%,23.5%,和47.4%,分别)。在“分配隐藏”和“参与者和人员致盲”领域,同意组发表年份≤1996年的比例高于不同意组(P=0.008和P<0.001)。在“对参与者和人员的致盲”中,影响因子在一致组中较高(P<0.001)。通过分析支持文本,我们发现最有可能的分歧原因是从相同的RCT中提取不同的信息.
    结论:对于使用2011版RoB工具在高血压领域的Cochrane评论,在RoB评估中有很大的分歧。建议使用2011版RoB工具的系统评价中的RoB评估结果需要谨慎解释。当我们综合临床证据时,需要从随机对照试验中收集更准确的信息。
    BACKGROUND: The inter-reviewer reliability of the risk of bias (RoB) assessment lacked agreement in previous studies. It is important to analyse these disagreements to improve the repeatability of RoB assessment. The objective of the study was to evaluate the frequency and reasons for disagreements in RoB assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were included in multiple Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional study was employed. We retrieved any RCTs that had been included in multiple Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension from ARCHIE. The results of the RoB assessments were extracted, and the distributions of agreements and possible reasons for disagreement were analyzed.
    RESULTS: Twenty-six Cochrane reviews were included in this study. A total of 78 RCTs appeared in more than one Cochrane review. The level of agreement ranged from domain to domain. \"Blinding of outcome assessment\" showed a reasonably high level of agreement (94.9%), while \"incomplete outcome data\", \"selective outcome reporting\" and \"other sources of bias\" showed moderate levels of agreement (74.6%, 79.2% and 75.6%, respectively). However, the domains of \"allocation concealment\", \"random sequence generation\" and \"blinding of participants and personnel\" showed low levels of agreement (24.4%, 23.5%, and 47.4%, respectively). In the domains of \"allocation concealment\" and \"blinding of participants and personnel\", the agreement group had higher proportion of publication year ≤ 1996 than the disagreement group (P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively). In the \"blinding of participants and personnel\", the impact factor was higher in the agreement group (P < 0.001). By analyzing the support text, we found that the most likely reason for disagreement was extracting different information from the same RCT.
    CONCLUSIONS: For Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension using the 2011 version of the RoB tool, there was a large disagreement in the RoB assessment. It is suggested that the results of RoB assessments in systematic reviews that used the 2011 version of the RoB tool need to be interpreted with caution. More accurate information from RCTs needs to be collected when we synthesize clinical evidence.
    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
    腹膜透析(PD)和血液透析(HD)是肾衰竭患者开始透析的两种可能方式。只有少数随机对照试验(RCT)评估了PD与HD。这两种模式的利弊仍然不确定。本综述包括RCT和非随机干预研究(NRSIs)。
    为了评估PD的益处和危害,与HD相比,肾衰竭患者开始透析。
    我们检索了2000年至2024年6月的Cochrane肾脏和移植研究注册,使用与这篇综述相关的搜索词。登记册中的研究是通过对CENTRAL的搜索确定的,MEDLINE,和EMBASE,会议记录,国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)搜索门户,和ClinicalTrials.gov.从2000年至2023年3月28日,在MEDLINE和EMBASE中搜索了NRSIs。
    RCTs和NRSIs在开始透析的人群中评估PD与HD相比是合格的。
    两名研究者独立评估这些研究是否合格,然后提取数据。使用标准Cochrane方法评估偏倚风险,并提取每份报告的相关结果.主要结果是残余肾功能(RKF)。次要结果包括全因,心血管和感染相关死亡,感染,心血管疾病,住院治疗,技术生存,生活参与和疲劳。
    84项研究共153份报告(2项RCT,82个NRSIs)被包括在内。研究在设计(小型单中心研究到国际注册分析)和纳入人群(广泛的纳入标准与仅限于更具体的参与者)方面差异很大。此外,治疗递送(例如自动与连续门诊PD,采用导管的HD与动静脉瘘或移植物相比,中心与家庭HD)和随访时间差异很大。就致盲参与者和人员以及与生活质量有关的致盲结果评估而言,这两个纳入的RCT被认为具有高偏倚风险。然而,在两项研究中,大多数其他标准被评估为低偏倚风险.尽管大多数NRSIs的偏倚风险(纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表)普遍较低,由于观察性研究设计的限制,研究存在选择偏倚和残余混杂因素的风险.在儿童中,HD和PD在全因死亡方面可能几乎没有差异(6项研究,5752名参与者:RR0.81,95%CI0.62至1.07;I2=28%;低确定性)和心血管死亡(3项研究,7073名参与者:RR1.23,95%CI0.58至2.59;I2=29%;低确定性),并且不清楚与感染相关的死亡(4项研究,7451名参与者:RR0.98,95%CI0.39至2.46;I2=56%;非常低的确定性)。在成年人中,与HD相比,PD在六个月时对RKF(mL/min/1.73m2)有不确定的影响(2项研究,146名参与者:MD0.90,95%CI0.23至3.60;I2=82%;非常低的确定性),12个月(3项研究,参与者606:MD1.21,95%CI-0.01至2.43;I2=81%;确定性非常低)和24个月(3项研究,334名参与者:MD0.71,95%CI-0.02至1.48;I2=72%;非常低的确定性)。PD对12个月时的残余尿量有不确定的影响(3项研究,253名参与者:MD344.10毫升/天,95%CI168.70至519.49;I2=69%;非常低的确定性)。PD可能降低RKF丢失的风险(3项研究,2834名参与者:RR0.55,95%CI0.44至0.68;I2=17%;低确定性)。与HD相比,PD对全因死亡有不确定的影响(42项研究,700,093名参与者:RR0.87,95%CI0.77至0.98;I2=99%;非常低的确定性)。在仅限于RCT的分析中,PD可以降低全因死亡的风险(2项研究,1120名参与者:RR0.53,95%CI0.32至0.86;I2=0%;中等确定性)。PD对两种心血管疾病都有不确定的影响(21项研究,68,492名参与者:RR0.96,95%CI0.78至1.19;I2=92%)和感染相关死亡(17项研究,116,333名参与者:RR0.90,95%CI0.57至1.42;I2=98%(两者的确定性都很低)。与HD相比,PD对经历菌血症/血流感染的患者数量有不确定的影响(2项研究,2582名参与者:RR0.34,95%CI0.10至1.18;I2=68%)和经历感染发作的患者人数(3项研究,277名参与者:RR1.23,95%CI0.93至1.62;I2=20%(均非常低的确定性)。PD可能会减少菌血症/血流感染发作的次数(2项研究,2637名参与者:RR0.44,95%CI0.27至0.71;I2=24%;低确定性)。与HD相比;不确定PD是否降低急性心肌梗死的风险(4项研究,110,850名参与者:RR0.90,95%CI0.74至1.10;I2=55%),冠状动脉疾病(3项研究,5826名参与者:RR0.95,95%CI0.46至1.97;I2=62%);缺血性心脏病(2项研究,58,374名参与者:RR0.86,95%CI0.57至1.28;I2=95%),充血性心力衰竭(3项研究,49,511名参与者:RR1.10,95%CI0.54至2.21;I2=89%)和卒中(4项研究,102,542名参与者:RR0.94,95%CI0.90至0.99;I2=0%),因为确定性证据低至非常低。与HD相比,PD对住院患者数量的影响不确定(4项研究,3282名参与者:RR0.90,95%CI0.62至1.30;I2=97%)和全因住院事件(4项研究,42,582名参与者:RR1.02,95%CI0.81至1.29;I2=91%(非常低的确定性)。纳入的研究均未具体报道生活参与或疲劳。然而,两项研究评估了就业。与HD相比,PD对一年的就业有不确定的影响(2项研究,593名参与者:RR0.83,95%CI0.20至3.43;I2=97%;非常低的确定性)。
    PD和HD对RKF的保存效果比较,全因和特定原因的死亡风险,菌血症的发病率,其他血管并发症(如中风,心血管事件)和患者报告的结果(例如生活参与和疲劳)是不确定的,基于主要从NRSIs获得的数据,因为只包括两个RCT。
    Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).
    To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.
    We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.
    RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.
    Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.
    A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).
    The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.
    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
    这是2010年首次发布的评论的更新。随着时间的推移,使用局部氟化物变得越来越普遍。幼儿局部氟化物消耗过多的氟化物可能会导致恒牙氟中毒。
    描述幼儿局部使用氟化物与恒牙氟斑牙风险之间的关系。
    我们对Cochrane口腔健康试验登记册进行了电子搜索,中部,MEDLINE,Embase,另外三个数据库,和两个试验记录。我们搜索了相关文章的参考列表。最近的搜索日期是2022年7月28日。
    我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),准RCT,队列研究,病例对照研究,和比较含氟牙膏的横断面调查,漱口水,凝胶,泡沫,油漆解决方案,和不同氟化物疗法的清漆,安慰剂,或者不干预。在引入局部氟化物后,目标人群是六岁以下的儿童。
    我们使用了Cochrane期望的标准方法学程序,并使用GRADE来评估证据的确定性。主要结果指标是恒牙中氟中毒的患病率百分比。两位作者从所有纳入的研究中提取了数据。在报告了调整后和未调整后的风险比或赔率比的情况下,我们在荟萃分析中使用了调整值.
    我们纳入了43项研究:三项随机对照试验,四项队列研究,10个病例对照研究,和26项横断面调查。我们判断了所有三个RCT,一项队列研究,一项病例对照研究,和六项横断面研究对偏见风险有一些担忧。我们认为所有其他观察性研究都存在高偏倚风险。我们将这些研究分为五个比较。比较1.儿童开始使用含氟牙膏刷牙的年龄两项队列研究(260名儿童)提供了非常不确定的证据,表明儿童在12个月或之前开始使用含氟牙膏刷牙与12个月后发生氟中毒之间的关联(风险比(RR)0.98,95%置信区间(CI)0.81至1.18;非常低的确定性证据)。同样,来自一项队列研究(3939名儿童)和两项横断面研究(1484名儿童)的证据提供了非常不确定的证据,表明儿童在24个月之前或之后开始使用氟化物牙膏刷牙(RR0.83,95%CI0.61至1.13;非常低的确定性证据)或四年之前或之后(比值比(OR)1.60,95%CI0.77至3.35;非常低的确定性证据),分别。比较2.使用氟化物牙膏刷牙的频率两项病例对照研究(258名儿童)提供了非常不确定的证据,表明儿童每天刷牙少于两次与每天刷牙两次或两次以上与氟中毒发展之间的关联(OR1.63,95%CI0.81至3.28;非常低的确定性证据)。两项横断面调查(1693名儿童)表明,每天刷牙少于一次与每天一次或多次刷牙可能与儿童氟中毒的发展减少有关(OR0.62,95%CI0.53至0.74;低确定性证据)。比较3.用于刷牙的氟化物牙膏的量两项病例对照研究(258名儿童)提供了非常不确定的证据,证明使用不到半刷牙膏的儿童之间的关联。相对于一半或更多的刷子,和氟中毒的发展(OR0.77,95%CI0.41至1.46;非常低的确定性证据)。来自横断面调查的证据也非常不确定(OR0.92,95%CI0.66至1.28;3项研究,2037名儿童;非常低的确定性证据)。比较4.牙膏中的氟化物浓度两项随机对照试验(1968年儿童)的证据表明,六岁以下儿童使用的牙膏中氟化物浓度较低可能会降低患氟中毒的风险:百万分之550(ppm)氟化物与1000ppm(RR0.75,95%CI0.57至0.99;中度确定性证据);440ppm氟化物与1450ppm(RR0.72,95%CI0.58至0.89;中度确定性证据)。开始刷牙的年龄为24个月零12个月,分别。两项病例对照研究(258名儿童)提供了关于1000ppm以下氟化物浓度之间关联的非常不确定的证据。相对于1000ppm或以上的浓度,和氟中毒的发展(OR0.89,95%CI0.52至1.52;非常低的确定性证据)。比较5.使用局部氟化物清漆的年龄来自一项RCT(123名儿童)的证据表明,在四年前使用氟化物清漆之间可能几乎没有差异,与没有应用程序相比,和氟中毒的发展(RR0.77,95%CI0.45至1.31;低确定性证据)。来自两项横断面调查(982名儿童)的低确定性证据表明,在4岁之前局部使用氟化物清漆可能与儿童氟中毒的发展有关(OR2.18,95%CI1.46至3.25)。
    大多数证据认为轻度氟中毒是早期使用局部氟化物的潜在不良后果。关于恒牙氟中毒的风险,有低至非常低的确定性和不确定的证据:当儿童开始接受局部氟化物清漆应用时;用氟化物牙膏刷牙;儿童使用的牙膏量;和刷牙的频率。RCT的中度确定性证据表明,从1至2岁到5至6岁,用1000ppm或更多氟化物牙膏刷牙的儿童可能会增加恒牙氟斑牙的机会。提出新的RCT来评估氟斑牙的发展是不道德的。然而,未来以龋齿预防为重点的随机对照试验可以记录儿童在生命早期暴露于局部氟化物源的情况,并将其恒牙中的氟斑牙作为长期结果进行评估.在缺乏这些研究和方法的情况下,这方面的进一步研究将来自观测研究。需要注意研究设计的选择,考虑到前瞻性对照研究比回顾性和非对照研究更不容易出现偏倚.
    This is an update of a review first published in 2010. Use of topical fluoride has become more common over time. Excessive fluoride consumption from topical fluorides in young children could potentially lead to dental fluorosis in permanent teeth.
    To describe the relationship between the use of topical fluorides in young children and the risk of developing dental fluorosis in permanent teeth.
    We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search date was 28 July 2022.
    We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional surveys comparing fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinses, gels, foams, paint-on solutions, and varnishes to a different fluoride therapy, placebo, or no intervention. Upon the introduction of topical fluorides, the target population was children under six years of age.
    We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was the percentage prevalence of fluorosis in the permanent teeth. Two authors extracted data from all included studies. In cases where both adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios or odds ratios were reported, we used the adjusted value in the meta-analysis.
    We included 43 studies: three RCTs, four cohort studies, 10 case-control studies, and 26 cross-sectional surveys. We judged all three RCTs, one cohort study, one case-control study, and six cross-sectional studies to have some concerns for risk of bias. We judged all other observational studies to be at high risk of bias. We grouped the studies into five comparisons. Comparison 1. Age at which children started toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste Two cohort studies (260 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children starting to use fluoride toothpaste for brushing at or before 12 months versus after 12 months and the development of fluorosis (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, evidence from one cohort study (3939 children) and two cross-sectional studies (1484 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children starting to use fluoride toothpaste for brushing before or after the age of 24 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13; very low-certainty evidence) or before or after four years (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.35; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. Comparison 2. Frequency of toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children brushing less than twice per day versus twice or more per day and the development of fluorosis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.28; very low-certainty evidence). Two cross-sectional surveys (1693 children) demonstrated that brushing less than once per day versus once or more per day may be associated with a decrease in the development of fluorosis in children (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3. Amount of fluoride toothpaste used for toothbrushing Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between children using less than half a brush of toothpaste, versus half or more of the brush, and the development of fluorosis (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence from cross-sectional surveys was also very uncertain (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28; 3 studies, 2037 children; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 4. Fluoride concentration in toothpaste There was evidence from two RCTs (1968 children) that lower fluoride concentration in the toothpaste used by children under six years of age likely reduces the risk of developing fluorosis: 550 parts per million (ppm) fluoride versus 1000 ppm (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence); 440 ppm fluoride versus 1450 ppm (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89; moderate-certainty evidence). The age at which the toothbrushing commenced was 24 months and 12 months, respectively. Two case-control studies (258 children) provided very uncertain evidence regarding the association between fluoride concentrations under 1000 ppm, versus concentrations of 1000 ppm or above, and the development of fluorosis (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.52; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 5. Age at which topical fluoride varnish was applied There was evidence from one RCT (123 children) that there may be little to no difference between a fluoride varnish application before four years, versus no application, and the development of fluorosis (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence from two cross-sectional surveys (982 children) that the application of topical fluoride varnish before four years of age may be associated with the development of fluorosis in children (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.25).
    Most evidence identified mild fluorosis as a potential adverse outcome of using topical fluoride at an early age. There is low- to very low-certainty and inconclusive evidence on the risk of having fluorosis in permanent teeth for: when a child starts receiving topical fluoride varnish application; toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste; the amount of toothpaste used by the child; and the frequency of toothbrushing. Moderate-certainty evidence from RCTs showed that children who brushed with 1000 ppm or more fluoride toothpaste from one to two years of age until five to six years of age probably had an increased chance of developing dental fluorosis in permanent teeth. It is unethical to propose new RCTs to assess the development of dental fluorosis. However, future RCTs focusing on dental caries prevention could record children\'s exposure to topical fluoride sources in early life and evaluate the dental fluorosis in their permanent teeth as a long-term outcome. In the absence of these studies and methods, further research in this area will come from observational studies. Attention needs to be given to the choice of study design, bearing in mind that prospective controlled studies will be less susceptible to bias than retrospective and uncontrolled studies.
    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
    无浆细胞DNA(cfDNA)片段化模式是癌症液体活检中具有高度翻译意义的新兴方向。传统上,将cfDNA测序读数与参考基因组进行比对以提取它们的片段组特征。在这项研究中,通过在相同的数据集上并行使用不同的参考基因组的cfDNA片段组学分析,我们报告了这种传统的基于参考的方法存在系统偏差。cfDNA片段组特征的偏差在种族之间以样品依赖性方式变化,因此可能会对多个临床中心的癌症诊断测定的性能产生不利影响。此外,为了规避分析偏见,我们主要发展,cfDNA片段组学分析的无参考方法。Freefly的运行速度比传统的基于参考的方法快60倍,同时产生高度一致的结果。此外,Freefly报道的cfDNA片段组学特征可直接用于癌症诊断。因此,Freefly对cfDNA片段组学的快速无偏测量具有翻译价值。
    Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentation patterns are emerging directions in cancer liquid biopsy with high translational significance. Conventionally, the cfDNA sequencing reads are aligned to a reference genome to extract their fragmentomic features. In this study, through cfDNA fragmentomics profiling using different reference genomes on the same datasets in parallel, we report systematic biases in such conventional reference-based approaches. The biases in cfDNA fragmentomic features vary among races in a sample-dependent manner and therefore might adversely affect the performances of cancer diagnosis assays across multiple clinical centers. In addition, to circumvent the analytical biases, we develop Freefly, a reference-free approach for cfDNA fragmentomics profiling. Freefly runs ∼60-fold faster than the conventional reference-based approach while generating highly consistent results. Moreover, cfDNA fragmentomic features reported by Freefly can be directly used for cancer diagnosis. Hence, Freefly possesses translational merit toward the rapid and unbiased measurement of cfDNA fragmentomics.
    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
    人工智能(AI)的协作努力在高收入国家(HIC)和中低收入国家(LMICs)之间越来越普遍。鉴于LMIC经常遇到的资源限制,协作对于汇集资源至关重要,专业知识,和知识。尽管有明显的优势,确保这些合作模式的公平性和公平性至关重要,特别是考虑到LMIC和HIC医院之间的明显差异。在这项研究中,我们表明,协作AI方法可以导致HIC和LMIC设置中不同的性能结果,特别是在数据失衡的情况下。通过一个真实世界的COVID-19筛查案例研究,我们证明,实施算法水平偏倚缓解方法显著改善了HIC和LMIC位点之间的结果公平性,同时保持了较高的诊断敏感性.我们将我们的结果与以前的基准进行比较,利用来自英国四家独立医院和一家越南医院的数据集,代表HIC和LMIC设置,分别。
    Collaborative efforts in artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly common between high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the resource limitations often encountered by LMICs, collaboration becomes crucial for pooling resources, expertise, and knowledge. Despite the apparent advantages, ensuring the fairness and equity of these collaborative models is essential, especially considering the distinct differences between LMIC and HIC hospitals. In this study, we show that collaborative AI approaches can lead to divergent performance outcomes across HIC and LMIC settings, particularly in the presence of data imbalances. Through a real-world COVID-19 screening case study, we demonstrate that implementing algorithmic-level bias mitigation methods significantly improves outcome fairness between HIC and LMIC sites while maintaining high diagnostic sensitivity. We compare our results against previous benchmarks, utilizing datasets from four independent United Kingdom Hospitals and one Vietnamese hospital, representing HIC and LMIC settings, respectively.
    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
    双自适应偏置硬币设计(DBCD),响应自适应随机化方案,旨在基于道德考虑的应计响应来扭曲主题分配概率。近年来,在理解DBCD的理论性质方面取得了重大进展,假设响应的模型规范正确。然而,有人担心模型规格错误对其设计和分析的影响。在本文中,我们评估了DBCD下设计模型错误规范和分析模型错误规范的鲁棒性。一方面,我们确认可以保持分配比例的一致性和渐近正态,即使响应遵循DBCD实施过程中设计模型所施加的分布以外的分布。另一方面,我们广泛研究了三种常用的线性回归模型来估计和推断治疗效果,即均值差异,协方差分析(ANCOVA)I,ANCOVAII。通过允许这些回归模型被任意错误指定,从而不能反映真实的数据生成过程,我们从三个模型中得出治疗效果估计的一致性和渐近正态。渐近性质表明,ANCOVAII模型,它考虑了协变量与治疗的相互作用项,产生最有效的估计器。这些结果可以为在涉及模型错误指定的场景中使用DBCD提供理论支持,从而促进了该随机化程序的广泛应用。
    Doubly adaptive biased coin design (DBCD), a response-adaptive randomization scheme, aims to skew subject assignment probabilities based on accrued responses for ethical considerations. Recent years have seen substantial advances in understanding DBCD\'s theoretical properties, assuming correct model specification for the responses. However, concerns have been raised about the impact of model misspecification on its design and analysis. In this paper, we assess the robustness to both design model misspecification and analysis model misspecification under DBCD. On one hand, we confirm that the consistency and asymptotic normality of the allocation proportions can be preserved, even when the responses follow a distribution other than the one imposed by the design model during the implementation of DBCD. On the other hand, we extensively investigate three commonly used linear regression models for estimating and inferring the treatment effect, namely difference-in-means, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) I, and ANCOVA II. By allowing these regression models to be arbitrarily misspecified, thereby not reflecting the true data generating process, we derive the consistency and asymptotic normality of the treatment effect estimators evaluated from the three models. The asymptotic properties show that the ANCOVA II model, which takes covariate-by-treatment interaction terms into account, yields the most efficient estimator. These results can provide theoretical support for using DBCD in scenarios involving model misspecification, thereby promoting the widespread application of this randomization procedure.
    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
    亚洲水塔(AWT)是10个主要亚洲河流系统的源头,并支持约20亿人的生活。在AWT上获得可靠的降水数据是了解该关键区域内水循环的前提。这里,我们定量地表明,考虑到来自三个水循环分量的观测证据,AWT上的“观测到的”降水被大大低估了,即,蒸散,径流,和累积的雪。我们发现,如果校正所谓的观测降水,会出现三个悖论,即,实际蒸散量超过降水量,不切实际的高径流系数,和累积的雪水当量超过同期降水量。然后,我们从风引起的轨距不足引起的仪器误差以及稀疏-不均匀的轨距密度和局部地表条件的复杂性引起的代表性误差来解释降水低估的原因。这些发现要求我们重新思考以前关于水循环的结果,促使这项研究讨论潜在的解决方案。
    The Asian water tower (AWT) serves as the source of 10 major Asian river systems and supports the lives of ~2 billion people. Obtaining reliable precipitation data over the AWT is a prerequisite for understanding the water cycle within this pivotal region. Here, we quantitatively reveal that the \"observed\" precipitation over the AWT is considerably underestimated in view of observational evidence from three water cycle components, namely, evapotranspiration, runoff, and accumulated snow. We found that three paradoxes appear if the so-called observed precipitation is corrected, namely, actual evapotranspiration exceeding precipitation, unrealistically high runoff coefficients, and accumulated snow water equivalent exceeding contemporaneous precipitation. We then explain the cause of precipitation underestimation from instrumental error caused by wind-induced gauge undercatch and the representativeness error caused by sparse-uneven gauge density and the complexity of local surface conditions. These findings require us to rethink previous results concerning the water cycle, prompting the study to discuss potential solutions.
    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
    来自少数民族和种族背景的个人经历了已经出现的有害和普遍的健康差异,在某种程度上,来自临床医生的偏见。
    我们使用自然语言处理方法来检查电子健康记录(EHR)注释中的语言标记是否因患者的种族和种族而异。为了验证这种方法论方法,我们还评估了临床医生认为语言标记指示偏倚的程度.
    在这项横断面研究中,我们提取了18岁或18岁以上的患者的EHR记录;有超过5年的糖尿病诊断代码;并在2006年至2014年期间接受了家庭医生的护理,一般内科医生,或者在城市里执业的内分泌学家,学术网络的诊所。患者的种族和种族被定义为白人非西班牙裔,黑人非西班牙裔,西班牙裔或拉丁裔.我们假设情感分析和社会认知引擎(SEANCE)组件(即,否定形容词,积极的形容词,喜悦的话,恐惧和厌恶的话,政治话语,尊重的话,信任动词,和幸福词),如果出现种族差异,平均字数将是偏见的指标。我们进行了线性混合效应分析,以检查感兴趣的结果(SEANCE组件和单词计数)与患者种族和种族之间的关系。控制患者年龄。为了验证这种方法,我们要求临床医生说明他们认为不同种族和族裔群体使用SEANCE语言领域的差异反映了EHR注释中的偏见的程度.
    我们检查了黑人非西班牙裔的EHR注释(n=12,905),白人非西班牙裔,和西班牙裔或拉丁裔患者(n=1562),有281名医生看过。共有27名临床医生参与了验证研究。就偏见而言,参与者将负面形容词评为8.63(SD2.06),恐惧和厌恶词为8.11(SD2.15),和积极的形容词为7.93(SD2.46)在1到10的范围内,其中10非常表明偏见。与白人非西班牙裔患者相比,黑人非西班牙裔患者的注释包含明显更多的阴性形容词(系数0.07,SE0.02)和明显更多的恐惧和厌恶词(系数0.007,SE0.002)。西班牙裔或拉丁裔患者的注释包括明显较少的阳性形容词(系数-0.02,SE0.007),信任动词(系数-0.009,SE0.004),和喜悦词(系数-0.03,SE0.01)高于白人非西班牙裔患者。
    这种方法可能使医生和研究人员能够识别和减轻医疗互动中的偏见,以减少由偏见引起的健康差异为目标。
    UNASSIGNED: Individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds experience pernicious and pervasive health disparities that have emerged, in part, from clinician bias.
    UNASSIGNED: We used a natural language processing approach to examine whether linguistic markers in electronic health record (EHR) notes differ based on the race and ethnicity of the patient. To validate this methodological approach, we also assessed the extent to which clinicians perceive linguistic markers to be indicative of bias.
    UNASSIGNED: In this cross-sectional study, we extracted EHR notes for patients who were aged 18 years or older; had more than 5 years of diabetes diagnosis codes; and received care between 2006 and 2014 from family physicians, general internists, or endocrinologists practicing in an urban, academic network of clinics. The race and ethnicity of patients were defined as White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, or Hispanic or Latino. We hypothesized that Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE) components (ie, negative adjectives, positive adjectives, joy words, fear and disgust words, politics words, respect words, trust verbs, and well-being words) and mean word count would be indicators of bias if racial differences emerged. We performed linear mixed effects analyses to examine the relationship between the outcomes of interest (the SEANCE components and word count) and patient race and ethnicity, controlling for patient age. To validate this approach, we asked clinicians to indicate the extent to which they thought variation in the use of SEANCE language domains for different racial and ethnic groups was reflective of bias in EHR notes.
    UNASSIGNED: We examined EHR notes (n=12,905) of Black non-Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, and Hispanic or Latino patients (n=1562), who were seen by 281 physicians. A total of 27 clinicians participated in the validation study. In terms of bias, participants rated negative adjectives as 8.63 (SD 2.06), fear and disgust words as 8.11 (SD 2.15), and positive adjectives as 7.93 (SD 2.46) on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely indicative of bias. Notes for Black non-Hispanic patients contained significantly more negative adjectives (coefficient 0.07, SE 0.02) and significantly more fear and disgust words (coefficient 0.007, SE 0.002) than those for White non-Hispanic patients. The notes for Hispanic or Latino patients included significantly fewer positive adjectives (coefficient -0.02, SE 0.007), trust verbs (coefficient -0.009, SE 0.004), and joy words (coefficient -0.03, SE 0.01) than those for White non-Hispanic patients.
    UNASSIGNED: This approach may enable physicians and researchers to identify and mitigate bias in medical interactions, with the goal of reducing health disparities stemming from bias.
    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
    高血压患者通常不会做出最有利的选择和行为来管理疾病。行为经济学策略为指导患者健康行为提供了新思路。范围审查旨在总结旨在改善高血压自我管理行为的行为经济学策略。2022年9月,使用以下电子数据库进行了文献检索:Embase,Medline,CINAHL,PsycINFO,WebofScience,科克伦图书馆,CNKI,万方中国期刊数据库,和CBM-SinoMed。我们筛选了以中文或英文撰写的有关旨在改善高血压自我管理行为的BE策略的实验研究的文献。我们搜索了17.820条记录,并在最终范围审查中纳入了18篇文章。我们按选择架构的类别进行了定性综合。最常见的BE策略是针对决策信息和决策援助的策略,例如改变信息的呈现方式,使信息可见,并为行动提供提醒。大多数策略都针对英国石油公司,饮食,药物依从性,和身体活动行为。18项研究中有10项报告了自我管理行为的统计学显着改善。对BE战略的进一步研究应侧重于应对挑战,包括改变决策结构,涵盖更全面的目标行为,并检查BE策略的长期效果。
    高血压的自我管理是一项长期的努力,但是人们经常做出有限理性的决定,并以偏离健康目标的方式行事。行为经济学(BE)策略在决策环境中做出微小的改变来改变选择,引导个人的行为与其目标或偏好一致。我们总结了改善高血压患者自我管理行为的BE策略,并使用选择体系结构的类别描述了研究结果。我们发现,最广泛使用的BE策略正在改变决策环境中信息的呈现方式。大多数BE策略对目标行为有积极影响,具有BE策略增强高血压自我管理行为的潜力。需要进一步的研究来确定这些策略的起源,修改决策结构,并纳入更广泛的健康行为,以展示实施BE战略的实用性和可持续性。
    Hypertensive patients often do not make the most favorable choices and behaviors for managing disease. Behavioral economics strategies offer new ideas for guiding patients toward health behavior. The scoping review aimed to summarize behavioral economics strategies designed to improve hypertension self-management behaviors. A literature search was conducted in September 2022 using the following electronic databases: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang Database for Chinese Periodicals, and CBM-SinoMed. We screened the literature for experimental studies written in Chinese or English reporting on BE strategies designed to improve self-management behavior in hypertension. We searched 17 820 records and included 18 articles in the final scoping review. We performed qualitative synthesis by the categories of choice architecture. The most common BE strategies were those targeting decision information and decision assistance, such as changing the presentation of information, making information visible, and providing reminders for actions. Most strategies targeted BP, diet, medication adherence, and physical activity behavior. Ten out of 18 studies reported statistically significant improvement in self-management behavior. Further research on BE strategies should focus on addressing the challenges, including changing the decision structure, encompassing a more comprehensive range of target behaviors, and examining the long-term effects of BE strategies.
    Self-management of hypertension is a long-term effort, but people often make bounded rational decisions and act in ways that deviate from health goals. Behavioral Economics (BE) strategies make small changes in the decision-making environment to alter choices, steering individuals’ behavior consistent with their goals or preferences. We summarized the BE strategies to improve self-management behavior in hypertension and described the study results using the categories of choice architecture. We found that the most widely used BE strategy is changing the presentation of information in the decision-making environment. Most BE strategies positively affect the target behaviors, which have the potential of BE strategies to enhance self-management behavior for hypertension. Further research is needed to identify the origins of these strategies, modify decision-making structures, and incorporate a broader range of health behaviors to showcase the practicality and sustainability of implementing BE strategies.
    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
    大型语言模型(LLM)可能会促进系统评论的劳动密集型过程。然而,确切的方法和可靠性仍然不确定。
    探讨在随机临床试验(RCT)中使用LLM评估偏倚风险(ROB)的可行性和可靠性。
    在2023年8月10日至2023年10月30日之间进行了一项调查研究。从已发表的系统评价中选择了30个RCT。
    开发了结构化提示,以指导ChatGPT(LLM1)和Claude(LLM2)使用由CLARITY开发的CochraneROB工具的修改版本评估这些RCT中的ROB在麦克马斯特大学。每个RCT由两个模型评估两次,并记录了结果。结果与3位专家的评估进行了比较,这被认为是一个标准。正确的评估率,灵敏度,特异性,计算F1分数以反映准确性,CochraneROB工具的总体和每个领域;计算一致性评估率和Cohenκ以衡量一致性;计算评估时间以衡量效率。使用风险差异比较了两种模型之间的性能。
    两种模型都显示出较高的正确评估率。LLM1的平均正确评估率为84.5%(95%CI,81.5%-87.3%),LLM2的发生率明显高于89.5%(95%CI,87.0%-91.8%)。2个模型之间的风险差异为0.05(95%CI,0.01-0.09)。在大多数领域,特定领域的正确率约为80%至90%;然而,在结构域1(随机序列生成)中观察到灵敏度低于0.80,2(分配隐藏),6(其他问题)。域4(缺少结果数据),5(选择性结果报告),和6的F1得分低于0.50。两次评估之间的一致率LLM1为84.0%,LLM2为87.3%。在7个域中,LLM1的κ超过0.80,在8个域中,LLM2的κ超过0.80。评估所需的平均(SD)时间对于LLM1为77(16)秒,对于LLM2为53(12)秒。
    在这项将LLM应用于ROB评估的调查研究中,LLM1和LLM2在评估RCT方面表现出相当高的准确性和一致性,表明它们在系统审查过程中作为支持工具的潜力。
    UNASSIGNED: Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate the labor-intensive process of systematic reviews. However, the exact methods and reliability remain uncertain.
    UNASSIGNED: To explore the feasibility and reliability of using LLMs to assess risk of bias (ROB) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
    UNASSIGNED: A survey study was conducted between August 10, 2023, and October 30, 2023. Thirty RCTs were selected from published systematic reviews.
    UNASSIGNED: A structured prompt was developed to guide ChatGPT (LLM 1) and Claude (LLM 2) in assessing the ROB in these RCTs using a modified version of the Cochrane ROB tool developed by the CLARITY group at McMaster University. Each RCT was assessed twice by both models, and the results were documented. The results were compared with an assessment by 3 experts, which was considered a criterion standard. Correct assessment rates, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to reflect accuracy, both overall and for each domain of the Cochrane ROB tool; consistent assessment rates and Cohen κ were calculated to gauge consistency; and assessment time was calculated to measure efficiency. Performance between the 2 models was compared using risk differences.
    UNASSIGNED: Both models demonstrated high correct assessment rates. LLM 1 reached a mean correct assessment rate of 84.5% (95% CI, 81.5%-87.3%), and LLM 2 reached a significantly higher rate of 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-91.8%). The risk difference between the 2 models was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09). In most domains, domain-specific correct rates were around 80% to 90%; however, sensitivity below 0.80 was observed in domains 1 (random sequence generation), 2 (allocation concealment), and 6 (other concerns). Domains 4 (missing outcome data), 5 (selective outcome reporting), and 6 had F1 scores below 0.50. The consistent rates between the 2 assessments were 84.0% for LLM 1 and 87.3% for LLM 2. LLM 1\'s κ exceeded 0.80 in 7 and LLM 2\'s in 8 domains. The mean (SD) time needed for assessment was 77 (16) seconds for LLM 1 and 53 (12) seconds for LLM 2.
    UNASSIGNED: In this survey study of applying LLMs for ROB assessment, LLM 1 and LLM 2 demonstrated substantial accuracy and consistency in evaluating RCTs, suggesting their potential as supportive tools in systematic review processes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号