PurposeThe aim of our investigation was to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the present world literature comparing the major surgical outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) to lamellar procedures. Our goal is that clinicians, eye bank administrators, and health policy makers will be able to utilize this study in implementing decisions in regards to corneal transplantation.MethodsPooled measures of association were with odds ratios and because of study heterogeneity, the pooled effects were assumed to follow a random effects model (DerSimonian-Laird). The comparisons were between 1) PKP’s and all lamellar procedures (anterior AND posterior) and then 2) between PKP’s and all anterior lamellar procedures and 3) PKP and all posterior lamellar procedures.ResultsFor PKP vs anterior lamellar procedures, the pooled odds ratio for rejection of PKP over lamellar keratoplasty (LK) was 3.56 (95% CI: 1.76-7.20) and for outright failure, the pooled odds ratio of PKP failure vs LK was 2.85 (95% CI: 0.84-9.66). For posterior lamellar procedures, the pooled odds ratio for rejection of PKP over LK was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.00-2.32). The pooled odds ratio for outright failure of PKP over posterior lamellar procedures was 2.09 (95% CI: 0.57-7.59). The follow up time was significantly longer for full transplants than for lamellar procedures.ConclusionsFor both anterior and posterior lamellar procedures, the odds ratios comparing rejection of full transplants to lamellar procedures (both anterior and posterior individually) were significantly higher in the PKP group. For outright failure, the PKP group also had a higher risk of failure than the lamellar groups but this was not statistically significant in either instance (anterior or posterior). Some of the clinical differences benefitting lamellar procedures may at least be partly explained by follow up time differences between groups and this needs to be accounted for more rigorously in future studies.
Although a rare entity, it is important to consider congenital calvarial hemangioma in the differential diagnosis of slow growing skull lesions due to the possibility of complications as a result of the hemangioma's intracranial extension, and the potential for treatment. En bloc resection has classically been described as a treatment for such lesions, although our case demonstrates that medical treatment with propranolol therapy may be appropriate in certain situations.
BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied.MethodsWe reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties.ResultsFor Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties.ConclusionsThe justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This study examines the impact of microfinance on gender based income generating activities of the Khushhalli Bank Ltd client's in urban zone of district Quetta during year 2011. The Primary data was collected through structured questionnaire from 80 clients (60 beneficiaries and 20 non-beneficiaries) by adopting cross sectional experimental design.In order to analyze the collected data the t-tests were applied. The results show that the microfinance has a positive impact on both male as well female beneficiaries as compare to non-beneficiaries in term of increase in business performance. It has non-significant impact on average sale revenue of both male as well as female micro-entrepreneurs. Whereas it has a significant impact on average net profit, average fixed assets as well as average net worth of the male but having non-significant impact on female established micro-entrepreneurs. Comparison of gender based business performance reveals that the microenterprises operated by male are able to generate better revenue and net income performance also the same results are obtained in case of enhancement in fixed assets as well as net worth. So we may confidently say that male clients are able in utilizing the microfinance services more effectively as compared to female.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.