Detection of publication and related biases remains suboptimal and threatens the validity and interpretation of meta-analytical findings. When bias is present, it usually differentially affects small and large studies manifesting as an association between precision and effect size and therefore visual asymmetry of conventional funnel plots. This asymmetry can be quantified and Egger's regression is, by far, the most widely used statistical measure for quantifying funnel plot asymmetry. However, concerns have been raised about both the visual appearance of funnel plots and the sensitivity of Egger's regression to detect such asymmetry, particularly when the number of studies is small. In this article, we propose a new graphical method, the Doi plot, to visualize asymmetry and also a new measure, the LFK index, to detect and quantify asymmetry of study effects in Doi plots. We demonstrate that the visual representation of asymmetry was better for the Doi plot when compared with the funnel plot. We also show that the diagnostic accuracy of the LFK index in discriminating between asymmetry due to simulated publication bias versus chance or no asymmetry was also better with the LFK index which had areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74-0.88 with simulations of meta-analyses with five, 10, 15, and 20 studies. The Egger's regression result had lower areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.58-0.75 across the same simulations. The LFK index also had a higher sensitivity (71.3-72.1%) than the Egger's regression result (18.5-43.0%). We conclude that the methods proposed in this article can markedly improve the ability of researchers to detect bias in meta-analysis.
BackgroundChikungunya and dengue infections are spatio-temporally related. The current review aims to determine the geographic limits of chikungunya, dengue and the principal mosquito vectors for both viruses and to synthesise current epidemiological understanding of their co-distribution.MethodsThree biomedical databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched from their inception until May 2015 for studies that reported concurrent detection of chikungunya and dengue viruses in the same patient. Additionally, data from WHO, CDC and Healthmap alerts were extracted to create up-to-date global distribution maps for both dengue and chikungunya.ResultsEvidence for chikungunya-dengue co-infection has been found in Angola, Gabon, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saint Martin, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand and Yemen; these constitute only 13 out of the 98 countries/territories where both chikungunya and dengue epidemic/endemic transmission have been reported.ConclusionsUnderstanding the true extent of chikungunya-dengue co-infection is hampered by current diagnosis largely based on their similar symptoms. Heightened awareness of chikungunya among the public and public health practitioners in the advent of the ongoing outbreak in the Americas can be expected to improve diagnostic rigour. Maps generated from the newly compiled lists of the geographic distribution of both pathogens and vectors represent the current geographical limits of chikungunya and dengue, as well as the countries/territories at risk of future incursion by both viruses. These describe regions of co-endemicity in which lab-based diagnosis of suspected cases is of higher priority.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1417-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
In the last three decades, Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has increased in incidence and severity in many countries worldwide. The increase in CDI incidence has been particularly apparent among surgical patients. Therefore, prevention of CDI and optimization of management in the surgical patient are paramount. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts from the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) updated its guidelines for management of CDI in surgical patients according to the most recent available literature. The update includes recent changes introduced in the management of this infection.
BackgroundThe epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has changed over the past decades with the emergence of highly virulent strains. The role of asymptomatic C. difficile colonization as part of the clinical spectrum of CDI is complex because many risk factors are common to both disease and asymptomatic states. In this article, we review the role of asymptomatic C. difficile colonization in the progression to symptomatic CDI, describe the epidemiology of asymptomatic C. difficile colonization, assess the effectiveness of screening and intensive infection control practices for patients at risk of asymptomatic C. difficile colonization, and discuss the implications for clinical practice.MethodsA narrative review was performed in PubMed for articles published from January 1980 to February 2015 using search terms ‘Clostridium difficile’ and ‘colonization’ or ‘colonisation’ or ‘carriage’.ResultsThere is no clear definition for asymptomatic CDI and the terms carriage and colonization are often used interchangeably. The prevalence of asymptomatic C. difficile colonization varies depending on a number of host, pathogen, and environmental factors; current estimates of asymptomatic colonization may be underestimated as stool culture is not practical in a clinical setting.ConclusionsAsymptomatic C. difficile colonization presents challenging concepts in the overall picture of this disease and its management. Individuals who are colonized by the organism may acquire protection from progression to disease, however they also have the potential to contribute to transmission in healthcare settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1258-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The current study confirms that iDTC is common, but the observed increasing incidence is not mirrored by prevalence within autopsy studies and, therefore, is unlikely to reflect a true population-level increase in tumorigenesis. This strongly suggests that the current increasing incidence of iDTC most likely reflects diagnostic detection increasing over time.
background. Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been extensively described in healthcare settings; however, risk factors associated with community-acquired (CA) CDI remain uncertain. This study aimed to synthesize the current evidence for an association between commonly prescribed medications and comorbidities with CA-CDI. methods. A systematic search was conducted in 5 electronic databases for epidemiologic studies that examined the association between the presence of comorbidities and exposure to medications with the risk of CA-CDI. Pooled odds ratios were estimated using 3 meta-analytic methods. Subgroup analyses by location of studies and by life stages were conducted.
Background and Objectives: In clinical trials, the relative risk or risk ratio (RR) is a mainstay of reporting of the effect magnitude for an intervention. The RR is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an intervention group to its probability in a control group. Thus, the RR provides a measure of change in the likelihood of an event linked to a given intervention. This measure has been widely used because it is today considered a measure with ''portability'' across varying outcome prevalence, especially when the outcome is rare. It turns out, however, that there is a much more important problem with this ratio, and this paper aims to demonstrate this problem.Methods: We used mathematical derivation to determine if the RR is a measure of effect magnitude alone (i.e., a larger absolute value always indicating a stronger effect) or not. We also used the same derivation to determine its relationship to the prevalence of an outcome. We confirm the derivation results with a follow-up analysis of 140,620 trials scraped from the Cochrane.Results: We demonstrate that the RR varies for reasons other than the magnitude of the effect because it is a ratio of two posterior probabilities, both of which are dependent on baseline prevalence of an outcome. In addition, we demonstrate that the RR shifts toward its null value with increasing outcome prevalence. The shift toward the null happens regardless of the strength of the association between intervention and outcome. The odds ratio (OR), the other commonly used ratio, measures solely the effect magnitude and has no relationship to the prevalence of an outcome in a study nor does it overestimate the RR as is commonly thought.Conclusions: The results demonstrate the need to (1) end the primary use of the RR in clinical trials and meta-analyses as its direct interpretation is not meaningful, (2) replace the RR by the OR, and (3) only use the postintervention risk recalculated from the OR for any expected level of baseline risk in absolute terms for purposes of interpretation such as the number needed to treat. These results will have far-reaching implications such as reducing misleading results from clinical trials and meta-analyses and ushering in a new era in the reporting of such trials or meta-analyses in practice.
In the last two decades there have been dramatic changes in the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), with increases in incidence and severity of disease in many countries worldwide. The incidence of CDI has also increased in surgical patients. Optimization of management of C difficile, has therefore become increasingly urgent. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts prepared evidenced-based World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for management of CDI in surgical patients.
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
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.