scholarly journals Effect of Periodic Vehicle Inspection on Road Crashes and Injuries: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6476
Author(s):  
Luis Miguel Martín-delosReyes ◽  
Pablo Lardelli-Claret ◽  
Laura García-Cuerva ◽  
Mario Rivera-Izquierdo ◽  
Eladio Jiménez-Mejías ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Slight Reduction ◽  
Road Crashes ◽  
Vehicle Inspection ◽  
Residual Confounding ◽  
Control Study

This systematic review was conducted to determine the effect of periodic motor vehicle inspections on road crashes and injuries, compared to less exposure to periodic inspections or no inspections. The Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were used to search the literature. Ecological studies were specifically excluded. A reverse search of the results with these databases and of other identified narrative reviews was also performed. Of the 5065 unique references initially extracted, only six of them met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review: one experimental study, two cohort studies with an internal comparison group, two cohort studies without a comparison group, and one case–control study. Two authors independently extracted the information and assessed the quality of each study. Due to the heterogeneity of the designs and the intervention or comparison groups used, quantitative synthesis of the results was not attempted. Except for the case–control study, which showed a significant association between road crashes and the absence of a valid vehicle inspection certificate, the other studies showed either a small reduction in crash rates (around 9%), no association, or a higher crash rate in vehicles with more inspections. In all observational studies, the risk of residual confounding bias was significant and could have explained the results. Therefore, although the research reviewed here suggests that periodic inspection may be associated with a slight reduction in road crashes, the marked heterogeneity along with probable residual confounding in most reports prevented us from establishing causality for this association.

scholarly journals LO32: A RAPID bedside approach to ruling out acute aortic dissection

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S17-S18
Author(s):  
R. Ohle ◽  
S. McIsaac ◽  
J. J. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Acute Aortic Dissection ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Risk Score ◽  
Highly Sensitive ◽  
Missed Diagnosis ◽  
Control Study

Introduction: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare but fatal condition where over-investigation and missed diagnosis are common. Our objectives were to derive a highly sensitive clinical risk score for AAD and perform pilot validation. Methods: We started with two independent systemic reviews to firstly identify clinical variables associated with AAD and secondly to determine reasons for missed diagnosis. We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane database (1968-July 2016). Two reviewers screened articles and extracted data. Agreement was measured by Kappa and study quality by the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses (Revman 5 and SAS 9.3) were performed. Due to sampling bias found in the systematic reviews a matched case control study confirming the strength and direction of predictor variables was performed. The cases (2002-2014) included new emergency department (ED) or in-hospital diagnosis of non-traumatic AAD confirmed by computed tomography (CT). The controls (2010-2011) were a random age/sex matched sample of patients triaged with undifferentiated acute truncal pain (< 14 days). Finally, we used the beta coefficients derived from multivariate logistic regression of our case control study to assign a numerical strength of association to predictor variables. To mitigate the bias inherent in case control studies we adjusted the beta coefficient for each variable by the diagnostic odds ratio calculated from each systematic review. Pilot validation was performed on a retrospective sample of all those undergoing CTA to rule out AAD at two tertiary care ED over 12 months. Two abstractors were blinded to the final diagnosis. Results: We derived a two-step risk score based on the derivation sample which included 4960 patients(Clinical variables systematic review -9 studies, N=2400, low risk of bias, Kappa 0.9 & Reasons for missed diagnosis systematic review - 11 studies, N=800, low-moderate risk of bias, Kappa 0.89 & Case control study -194 AAD, 776 Controls). Step one is a RAPID assessment for AAD 1) Risk factors 2) Alternative diagnosis in the differential that mimics AAD- ACS, PE, Stroke 3) Physical exam- hypotension, pulse deficit 4) Impression- clinical suspicion of AAD and 5) Discomfort- migrating, tearing, pleuritic, thunderclap, severe pain. If any of the above factors are present proceed to step two. Step two stratifies patients based on history (low, moderate, high suspicion), physical exam (hypotension/pulse deficit) and risk factors. In the pilot validation (N=375,AAD=16) sensitivity was 100% (95%CI 79.4-100) and specificity 36.5% (95%CI 31.5-41.7%). Patients were successfully stratified into low (<2, 0% AAD), moderate (2, 2.2% AAD), high (>2, 19.6% AAD) and critical probability (>3, 62.5% AAD), with up to 36% reduction in imaging. Conclusion: We derived a highly sensitive new clinical risk score with the potential to reduce missed cases of AAD, reduce unnecessary imaging and expedite care.

CSF Pressure, Volume, and Post‐Dural Puncture Headache: A Case‐Control Study and Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (8) ◽  
pp. 1324-1338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan H. Smith ◽  
Brian Mac Grory ◽  
Richard J. Butterfield ◽  
Babar Khokar ◽  
Bryce L. Falk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dural Puncture ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Post Dural Puncture Headache ◽  
Csf Pressure ◽  
Control Study

scholarly journals Chronic rhinosinusitis and premorbid autoimmune diseases: a population-based case–control study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang-Chun Shih ◽  
Hua-Hsin Hsieh ◽  
Gregory J. Tsay ◽  
Ivan T. Lee ◽  
Yung-An Tsou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Control Study

Abstract Evidence shows that chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is associated with prior presence of autoimmune diseases; however, large-scale population-based studies in the literature are limited. We conducted a population-based case–control study investigating the association between CRS and premorbid autoimmune diseases by using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. The CRS group included adult patients newly diagnosed with CRS between 2001 and 2013. The date of diagnosis was defined as the index date. The comparison group included individuals without CRS, with 1:4 frequency matching for gender, age, and index year. Premorbid diseases were forward traced to 1996. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. The CRS group consisted of 30,611 patients, and the comparison group consisted of 122,444 individuals. Patients with CRS had a higher significant association with premorbid autoimmune diseases (adjusted OR 1.39 [1.28–1.50]). Specifically, patients with CRS had a higher significant association with ankylosing spondylitis, polymyositis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, sicca syndrome, and systemic lupus erythematosus (adjusted OR 1.49 [1.34–1.67], 3.47 [1.12–10.8], 1.22 [1.04–1.43], 1.60 [1.31–1.96], 2.10 [1.63–2.72], and 1.69 [1.26–2.25]). In subgroup analysis, CRS with and without nasal polyps demonstrated a significant association with premorbid autoimmune diseases (adjusted OR 1.34 [1.14–1.58] and 1.50 [1.38–1.62]). In addition, CRS with fungal and non-fungal infections also demonstrated a significant association with premorbid autoimmune diseases (adjusted OR 2.02 [1.72–2.49] and 1.39 [1.28–1.51]). In conclusion, a significant association between CRS and premorbid autoimmune diseases has been identified. These underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

Quantitative Epidemiology

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-255
Author(s):  
Jonathan Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Hospital Epidemiology ◽  
Quantitative Epidemiology ◽  
Control Study

AbstractWe provide guidance for new practitioners in the vocabulary of modern epidemiology and the application of quantitative methods. Most hospital epidemiology involves surveillance (observational) data that were not part of a planned experiment, so the rubric and logic of controlled experimental studies cannot be applied. Forms of incidence and prevalence often are confused. The names “cohort study” and “case-control study” are unfortunate, as cohort studies rarely involve cohorts and case-control studies allow no active control by the investigator. Either type of study can be prospective or retrospective. Results of studies with discrete outcomes (infected or not, lived or died) often are represented best by a form of the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals. The potential distorting effects of selection bias, misclassification, and confounding need to be considered.

scholarly journals Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study

BMJ ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 331 (7529) ◽  
pp. 1371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Laumon ◽  
Blandine Gadegbeku ◽  
Jean-Louis Martin ◽  
Marie-Berthe Biecheler
Keyword(s):  
Case Control Study ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Road Crashes ◽  
Control Study

scholarly journals Increased Expression of ERCC2 Gene in Head and Neck Cancer is Associated with Aggressive Tumors: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Zafeer ◽  
Ishrat Mahjabeen ◽  
Mahmood Akhtar Kayani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Expression Patterns ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Ki 67 ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Control Study

Introduction The excision repair cross-complementation group 2 (ERCC2) ATP-dependent helicase is an essential member of the DNA repair pathway. It has been observed to be differentially expressed in different cancers, which shows its involvement in carcinogenesis. Aim In the present study we have tried to determine the association of expression patterns of this gene with head and neck carcinogenesis. Method We first carried out a systematic review of the available studies on the role of ERCC2 in head and neck cancer (HNC). In order to test the hypothesis that the expression patterns of XPD/ERCC2 play a critical role in HNC pathogenesis, we then conducted a population based case-control study on 81 head and neck tumor samples and adjacent normal-tissue control samples. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) were used to assess ERCC2 deregulation at the mRNA level. Result Expression analysis showed that the ERCC2 expression level was significantly upregulated (p<0.05) in HNC tissues compared with adjacent normal tissues. Furthermore, the expression pattern of ERCC2 was correlated with the expression pattern of Ki-67 and a significant correlation (r = 0.230, p<0.03) was observed between ERCC2 and Ki-67. Spearman's correlation also showed a significant correlation between ERCC2 expression and tumor stage (r = 0.271, p<0.02) and grade (r = 0.228, p<0.02) of HNC. Conclusions Our data suggest that deregulation of ERCC2 in HNC has the potential to predict a more aggressive cancer phenotype and may be considered a possible biomarker for improved diagnosis and prognosis of HNC.

scholarly journals Analyzing the Relationship between Cohort and Case-Control Study Results Based on Model for Multiple Pathogenic Factors

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Hui Liu
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Definite Relationship ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Control Study

Objective. Although the relative risk from a prospective cohort study is numerically approximate to the odds ratio from a case-control study for a low-probability event, a definite relationship between case-control and cohort studies cannot be confirmed. In this study, we established a different model to determine the relationship between case-control and cohort studies. Methods. Two analysis models (the cross-sectional model and multiple pathogenic factor model) were established. Incidences in both the exposure group and the nonexposure group in a cohort study were compared with the frequency of the observed factor in each group (diseased and nondiseased) in a case-control study. Results. The relationship between the results of a case-control study and a cohort study is as follows: Pe=Pd∗m/Pc∗1−m+Pd∗m; Pn=m∗1−Pd/1−Pc∗1−m−Pd∗m, where Pe and Pn represent the incidence in the exposed group and nonexposed group, respectively, from the cohort study, while Pd and Pc represent the observed frequencies in the disease group and the control group, respectively, for the case-control study; finally, m represents the incidence in the total population. Conclusions. There is a definite relationship between the results of case-control and cohort studies assessing the same exposure. The outcomes of case-control studies can be translated into cohort study data.

scholarly journals Intrauterine exposure to carbamazepine and specific congenital malformations: systematic review and case-control study

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 341 (dec02 1) ◽  
pp. c6581-c6581 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jentink ◽  
H. Dolk ◽  
M. A. Loane ◽  
J. K. Morris ◽  
D. Wellesley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Congenital Malformations ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Intrauterine Exposure ◽  
Control Study
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document