Sex considerations in acute coronary syndromes

It is a very important issue to enlighten on gender differences and similarities regarding the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It is a fact that women have not been included in clinical trials in numbers equal to men, for whatever reason. In the future, it will be necessary to individualize, as much as possible, the management of patients, regardless of gender. To get there, it is necessary to have sufficient numbers of patients from both genders included in trials, or otherwise it is not possible to draw proper conclusions. Until now, most results regarding women and acute coronary syndromes have been based on substudy analyses with inadequate statistical power. If gender differences have become evident in studies with gender-mixed populations, it seems obvious that the calculated power to show significant differences is also inadequate for men. There is an urgent need of more research in this area, in order not to harm our patients with our treatment because of a paucity of knowledge. It is also as important not to withdraw proper treatment from certain individuals when they can benefit from it.

Perinatal epidemiology: Issues, challenges, and potential solutions

Perinatal epidemiology research is concerned with identifying the effects of events during pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes that include maternal, fetal, and neonatal health outcomes. Randomized trials in perinatal research face many challenges, including randomization difficulties, ethical considerations, and inadequate statistical power due to the small number of subjects eligible for participation. For these reasons, most epidemiological studies conducted in this research field are observational and include different types of bias. This review describes the key methodological difficulties in the design and analysis of randomized and observational studies in perinatal epidemiology, and provides potential corrective approaches.

Gender considerations in acute coronary syndromes

It is a very important issue to enlighten on gender differences and similarities regarding the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It is a fact that women have not been included in clinical trials in numbers equal to men, for whatever reason. In the future, it will be necessary to individualize, as much as possible, the management of patients, regardless of gender. To get there, it is necessary to have sufficient numbers of patients from both genders included in trials, or otherwise it is not possible to draw proper conclusions. Until now, most results regarding women and acute coronary syndromes have been based on substudy analyses with inadequate statistical power. If gender differences have become evident in studies with gender-mixed populations, it seems obvious that the calculated power to show significant differences is also inadequate for men. There is an urgent need of more research in this area, in order not to harm our patients with our treatment because of a paucity of knowledge. It is also as important not to withdraw proper treatment from certain individuals when they can benefit from it.

Gender considerations in acute coronary syndromes

It is a very important issue to enlighten on gender differences and similarities regarding the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It is a fact that women have not been included in clinical trials in numbers equal to men, for whatever reason. In the future, it will be necessary to individualize, as much as possible, the management of patients, regardless of gender. To get there, it is necessary to have sufficient numbers of patients from both genders included in trials, or otherwise it is not possible to draw proper conclusions. Until now, most results regarding women and acute coronary syndromes have been based on substudy analyses with inadequate statistical power. If gender differences have become evident in studies with gender-mixed populations, it seems obvious that the calculated power to show significant differences is also inadequate for men. There is an urgent need of more research in this area, in order not to harm our patients with our treatment because of a paucity of knowledge. It is also as important not to withdraw proper treatment from certain individuals when they can benefit from it.

Gender considerations in acute coronary syndromes

It is a very important issue to enlighten on gender differences and similarities regarding the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It is a fact that women have not been included in clinical trials in numbers equal to men, for whatever reason. In the future, it will be necessary to individualize, as much as possible, the management of patients, regardless of gender. To get there, it is necessary to have sufficient numbers of patients from both genders included in trials, or otherwise it is not possible to draw proper conclusions. Until now, most results regarding women and acute coronary syndromes have been based on substudy analyses with inadequate statistical power. If gender differences have become evident in studies with gender-mixed populations, it seems obvious that the calculated power to show significant differences is also inadequate for men. There is an urgent need of more research in this area, in order not to harm our patients with our treatment because of a paucity of knowledge. It is also as important not to withdraw proper treatment from certain individuals when they can benefit from it.

The Misuse of ‘No Significant Difference’ in British Orthopaedic Literature

INTRODUCTION Many studies published in medical journals do not consider the statistical power required to detect a meaningful difference between study groups. As a result, these studies are often underpowered: the sample size may not be large enough to pick up a statistically significant difference (or other effect of interest) of a given size between the study groups. Therefore, the conclusion that there is no statistically significant difference between groups cannot be made unless a study has been shown to have sufficient power. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power in British journals to which orthopaedic surgeons regularly submit. MATERIALS AND METHODS We assessed all papers in the last consecutive six issues prior to the start of the study (April 2005) in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British), Injury, and Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. We sought published evidence that a power analysis had been performed in association with the main hypothesis of the paper. RESULTS There were a total of 170 papers in which a statistical comparison of two or more groups was undertaken. Of these 170 papers, 49 (28.8%) stated as their primary conclusion that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups studied. Of these 49 papers, only 3 (6.1%) had performed a power analysis demonstrating adequate sample size. CONCLUSIONS These results demonstrate that the majority of negative studies in the British orthopaedic literature that we have looked at have not performed the statistical analysis necessary to reach their stated conclusions. In order to remedy this, we recommend that the journals sampled include the following guidance in their instructions to authors: the statement ‘no statistically significant difference was found between study groups’ should be accompanied by the results of a power analysis.