scholarly journals Cervical Ossification of Ligamentum Flavum: Elaborating an Underappreciated but Occasional Contributor to Myeloradiculopathy in Aging Population Based on Synthesis of Individual Participant Data

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 16 ◽  
pp. 897-908
Author(s):  
Baoliang Zhang ◽  
Guanghui Chen ◽  
Xi Chen ◽  
Chuiguo Sun ◽  
Zhongqiang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Ligamentum Flavum ◽  
Aging Population ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Ossification Of Ligamentum Flavum

scholarly journals Smoking and nasopharyngeal cancer: individual data meta-analysis of six prospective studies on 334 935 men

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia Huang Lin ◽  
Chi Pang Wen ◽  
Chao Qiang Jiang ◽  
Jian-Min Yuan ◽  
Chien Jen Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Tobacco Control Policies ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Smoking Exposure ◽  
Drinking Status ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Never Smokers

Abstract Background The role of smoking in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains uncertain, especially in endemic regions. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to investigate the associations between smoking exposure and risk of NPC. Methods We obtained individual participant data of 334 935 male participants from six eligible population-based cohorts in NPC-endemic regions, including two each in Guangzhou and Taiwan, and one each in Hong Kong and Singapore. We used one- and two-stage approaches IPD meta-analysis and Cox proportional hazard models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of NPC for smoking exposure adjusting for age and drinking status. Results During 2 961 315 person-years of follow-up, 399 NPC evens were ascertained. Risks of NPC were higher in ever versus never smokers (HRone-stage = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.07-1.63, P = 0.0088; HRtwo-stage = 1.27, 1.01-1.60, 0.04). These positive associations appeared to be stronger in ever smokers who consumed 16+ cigarettes/day (HRone-stage = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.29-2.16, P = 0.0001), and in those who started smoking at age younger than 16 (2.16, 1.33-3.50, 0.0103), with dose-response relationships (P-values for trend = 0.0028 and 0.0103, respectively). Quitting (versus daily smoking) showed a small reduced risk (stopped for 5+ years: HRone-stage = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.60-1.39, P = 0.66; for former smokers: HRtwo-stage = 0.84, 0.61-1.14, 0.26). Conclusions This first IPD meta-analysis from six prospective cohorts in endemic regions has provided robust observational evidence that smoking increased NPC risk in men. NPC should be added to the 12–16 cancer sites known to be tobacco-related cancers. Strong tobacco control policies, preventing young individuals from smoking, would reduce NPC risk in endemic regions.

How do academics assess the results of multiple experiments?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olmo Van den Akker ◽  
Linda Dominguez Alvarez ◽  
Marjan Bakker ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Additional Experiment ◽  
Underlying Theory ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Vote Counting

We studied how academics assess the results of a set of four experiments that all test a given theory. We found that participants’ belief in the theory increases with the number of significant results, and that direct replications were considered to be more important than conceptual replications. We found no difference between authors and reviewers in their propensity to submit or recommend to publish sets of results, but we did find that authors are generally more likely to desire an additional experiment. In a preregistered secondary analysis of individual participant data, we examined the heuristics academics use to assess the results of four experiments. Only 6 out of 312 (1.9%) participants we analyzed used the normative method of Bayesian inference, whereas the majority of participants used vote counting approaches that tend to undervalue the evidence for the underlying theory if two or more results are statistically significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document