“…Additionally, quality score use in meta‐analyses remains controversial 31, 32, 33. As a result, study quality was incorporated by including quality components, such as study design, measurement of alcohol consumption and hypertension, adjustment for age, and sex‐specific RRs, in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and further by investigating potential heterogeneity in metaregression models and several subgroup analyses.…”
BackgroundAlthough it is well established that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of hypertension, the risk associated with low levels of alcohol intake in men and women is unclear.Methods and ResultsWe searched Medline and Embase for original cohort studies on the association between average alcohol consumption and incidence of hypertension in people without hypertension. Random‐effects meta‐analyses and metaregressions were conducted. Data from 20 articles with 361 254 participants (125 907 men and 235 347 women) and 90 160 incident cases of hypertension (32 426 men and 57 734 women) were included. In people drinking 1 to 2 drinks/day (12 g of pure ethanol per drink), incidence of hypertension differed between men and women (relative riskwomen vs men=0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.93). In men, the risk for hypertension in comparison with abstainers was relative risk=1.19 (1.07–1.31; I2=59%), 1.51 (1.30–1.76), and 1.74 (1.35–2.24) for consumption of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 or more standard drinks per day, respectively. In women, there was no increased risk for 1 to 2 drinks/day (relative risk=0.94; 0.88–1.01; I2=73%), and an increased risk for consumption beyond this level (relative risk=1.42; 1.22–1.66).ConclusionsAny alcohol consumption was associated with an increase in the risk for hypertension in men. In women, there was no risk increase for consumption of 1 to 2 drinks/day and an increased risk for higher consumption levels. We did not find evidence for a protective effect of alcohol consumption in women, contrary to earlier meta‐analyses.
“…Additionally, quality score use in meta‐analyses remains controversial 31, 32, 33. As a result, study quality was incorporated by including quality components, such as study design, measurement of alcohol consumption and hypertension, adjustment for age, and sex‐specific RRs, in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and further by investigating potential heterogeneity in metaregression models and several subgroup analyses.…”
BackgroundAlthough it is well established that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of hypertension, the risk associated with low levels of alcohol intake in men and women is unclear.Methods and ResultsWe searched Medline and Embase for original cohort studies on the association between average alcohol consumption and incidence of hypertension in people without hypertension. Random‐effects meta‐analyses and metaregressions were conducted. Data from 20 articles with 361 254 participants (125 907 men and 235 347 women) and 90 160 incident cases of hypertension (32 426 men and 57 734 women) were included. In people drinking 1 to 2 drinks/day (12 g of pure ethanol per drink), incidence of hypertension differed between men and women (relative riskwomen vs men=0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.93). In men, the risk for hypertension in comparison with abstainers was relative risk=1.19 (1.07–1.31; I2=59%), 1.51 (1.30–1.76), and 1.74 (1.35–2.24) for consumption of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 or more standard drinks per day, respectively. In women, there was no increased risk for 1 to 2 drinks/day (relative risk=0.94; 0.88–1.01; I2=73%), and an increased risk for consumption beyond this level (relative risk=1.42; 1.22–1.66).ConclusionsAny alcohol consumption was associated with an increase in the risk for hypertension in men. In women, there was no risk increase for consumption of 1 to 2 drinks/day and an increased risk for higher consumption levels. We did not find evidence for a protective effect of alcohol consumption in women, contrary to earlier meta‐analyses.
“…Correlation coefficient power was categorized as poor (<0.40), fair to good (0.40-0.75), and excellent (>0.75). A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no reliability, whereas a value of 1 indicates excellent reliability (15). …”
Objective: Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a drastic situation that affects patients who have undergone breast cancer surgery. The impact of this condition on individuals' quality of life should be investigated in more detail to obtain better treatment results.
Materials and Methods:In total, 65 patients with BCRL participated in this study. Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) was used to evaluate the validity of associated domains in Lymphedema Quality of Life Tool (LYMQoL). Both the LYMQoL and NHP were filled out by BCRL patients. To evaluate its test-retest reliability, the LYMQoL was subsequently performed seven days following its initial application. Measurement properties such as internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity and factor structure were tested. The internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha; test-retest reliability was assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.74 to 0.91 for the LYMQoL total and domain scores. Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC=0.92-0.99). When the relation between LYMQoL and NHP was investigated, 'good' to 'very good' correlations were obtained (r=0.539-0.643, p<0.05) for all domains of LYMQoL. Exploratory factor analyses demonstrated a four-factor structure.
Conclusion:Turkish version of LYMQoL is a valid and reliable measurement tool to evaluate the quality of life in patients with BCRL.
“…For each included study, we assessed the risk of bias as low, high, or unclear against ten important sources (domains) of bias by following a validated checklist for measuring bias in studies of risk factors (7)(8)(9). Following were the domains where risk of bias was assessed: (i) exposure definition, (ii) exposure assessments, (iii) blinding of assessors, (iv) reliability of assessments, (v) confounding, (vi) attrition, (vii) selective reporting, (viii) analysis methods in the study (research-specific bias), (ix) funding, and (x) conflict of interest.…”
Section: Search Selection and Data Extractionmentioning
A dose-response analysis of night-shift work and breast cancer found the evidence insufficient for a causal link. For the first time, quality of the studies was assessed and the results of the review viewed in the light of the quality of evidence. The review calls for studies with prospective follow-up and objective data on night-shift work.
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.