Comparison between Bayesian approach and frequentist methods for estimating relative risk in randomized controlled trials: a simulation study

2016 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 640-651
Author(s):  
Leila Janani ◽  
Mohammad Ali Mansournia ◽  
Kazem Mohammad ◽  
Mahmood Mahmoodi ◽  
Kamran Mehrabani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bayesian Approach ◽  
Simulation Study ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Lower Risk of Recurrence After Mesh Repair Versus Non-Mesh Sutured Repair in Open Umbilical Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bisgaard ◽  
R. Kaufmann ◽  
M. W. Christoffersen ◽  
P. Strandfelt ◽  
L. L. Gluud
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Umbilical Hernia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Seroma Formation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and Aims: The use of mesh repair in a small- or middle-sized umbilical hernia remains controversial, and evidence is based on only few and small heterogeneous randomized trials. The primary aim was to assess differences, if any, in recurrence (clinical and reoperation), and secondary aim was to assess differences in infections, seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Method: A systematic review (predefined search strategy) and meta-analyses were conducted based on pre-study strict and well-defined methodology. The literature search was completed on 1 January 2018. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were identified (mesh repair, n = 326 versus non-mesh sutured repair, n = 330) and 602 records were excluded. Randomized controlled trials included patients with defect diameters of ⩾1 to 4 cm. Mesh repair reduced the risk of recurrence compared with sutured repair with a relative risk of 0.28 (95% confidence interval = 0.13–0.58, I2 = 0%, number needed to treat = 13 patients). Additional analyses found no differences between the two surgical techniques regarding infection (relative risk = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.36–1.79), seroma formation (relative risk = 1.38, 95% confidence interval = 0.57–3.32), or hematomas (relative risk = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.23–1.30). Lack of sufficient data precluded meta-analysis evaluating risk of seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Conclusion: Mesh repair is recommended for umbilical hernia of ⩾1 to 4 cm. More evidence is needed for the optimal placement of the mesh (sublay or onlay) and the role of mesh in patients with an umbilical hernia <1 cm.

scholarly journals Assessment and Implication of Prognostic Imbalance in Randomized Controlled Trials with a Binary Outcome – A Simulation Study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. e36677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong Chu ◽  
Stephen D. Walter ◽  
Gordon Guyatt ◽  
P. J. Devereaux ◽  
Michael Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Simulation Study ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Binary Outcome ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Safety of Intravenous Iron in Dialysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Hougen ◽  
David Collister ◽  
Mathieu Bourrier ◽  
Thomas Ferguson ◽  
Laura Hochheim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Intravenous Iron ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and objectivesThe safety of intravenous iron dosing in dialysis is uncertain. Higher-dose intravenous iron may be associated with a higher risk of infections, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety of higher-dose versus lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation in adult patients treated with dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CINAHL from inception to January 6, 2017 for randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing higher-dose intravenous iron with lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron in patients treated with dialysis that had all-cause mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as outcomes.ResultsOf the 2231 eligible studies, seven randomized, controlled trials and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The randomized, controlled trials showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>400 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (six studies; n=970; pooled relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.84; follow-up ranging from 35 days to 26 months) or infection (four studies; n=743; relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.41). The observational studies showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>200 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (eight studies; n=241,408; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.21; follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months), infection (eight studies; n=135,532; pooled hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.28), cardiovascular events (seven studies; n=135,675; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.56), or hospitalizations (five studies; n=134,324; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.19).ConclusionsHigher-dose intravenous iron does not seem to be associated with higher risk of mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations in adult patients on dialysis. Strength of this finding is limited by small numbers of participants and events in the randomized, controlled trials and statistical heterogeneity in observational studies.

Mindfulness training for smoking cessation: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 1841-1850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Theodora Oikonomou ◽  
Marios Arvanitis ◽  
Robert L Sokolove
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mindfulness Training ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Percent Confidence Interval ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Recent studies have shown that mindfulness training has a promising potential for smoking treatment. In order to examine the efficacy of mindfulness training in smoking cessation, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Four randomized controlled trials with 474 patients were included in our analysis. The results showed that 25.2 percent of participants remained abstinent for more than 4 months in the mindfulness group compared to 13.6 percent of those who received usual care therapy (relative risk, 1.88; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.04–3.40). Our results suggest that mindfulness training may have an important role to play in efforts to lower cigarette smoking rates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document