AIM: To investigate if there is an association between hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the risk of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: All relevant studies published before 11 October, 2012 we...AIM: To investigate if there is an association between hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the risk of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: All relevant studies published before 11 October, 2012 were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the Cochrane Library databases and with cross-referencing. The observational studies that reported RR or OR estimates with 95%CIs for the association between HBV or HCV and pancreatic cancer were included. A random-effects model was used to summarize meta-analytic estimates. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was applied to assess the quality of the methodology in the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 eligible studies were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, chronic hepatitis B and inactive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carrier state (HBsAg positive) had a significantly increased risk of pancreatic cancer with OR of 1.20 (95%CI: 1.01-1.39), especially in the Chinese population (OR = 1.30, 95%CI: 1.05-1.56). Past exposure to HBV (possible occult HBV infection) had an increased OR of pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.05-1.42), especially among those patients without natural immunity [anti hepatitis B core (HBc) positive/hepatitis B surface antibody (anti HBs) negative], with OR of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.13-2.22). However, past exposure to HBV with natural immunity (anti-HBc positive/anti-HBs positive) had no association with pancreatic cancer development, with OR 0.98 (95%CI: 0.80-1.16), nor did the HBV active replication (hepatitis B e antigen positive status), with OR 0.98 (95%CI: 0.27-1.68). The risk of pancreatic cancer among anti-HBs positive patients was significantly lower than among anti-HBs negative patients (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.46-0.62). Past exposure to HCV also resulted in an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (OR = 1.26, 95%CI: 1.03-1.50). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Evidence of publication bias for HBV/HCV infection-pancreatic cancer association was not found. 展开更多
目的:用Meta分析方法定量评价生理浓度范围内血清总胆红素水平与脑卒中发病风险之间的剂量-反应关系。方法:计算机检索PubMed、Embase、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方和维普数据库,查...目的:用Meta分析方法定量评价生理浓度范围内血清总胆红素水平与脑卒中发病风险之间的剂量-反应关系。方法:计算机检索PubMed、Embase、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方和维普数据库,查找符合纳入标准的临床研究。应用STATA 11.0软件进行统计分析。结果:纳入11项观察性研究、202641例受试者,其中包括4904例脑卒中患者。Meta分析结果显示,血清总胆红素水平与缺血性脑卒中及脑卒中发病风险呈负相关[OR(95%CI)分别为0.76(0.6~0.87)和0.74(0.64~0.86),P均<0.001]。剂量-反应Meta分析显示,随着血清总胆红素水平升高,脑卒中发病风险逐渐降低;血清总胆红素水平每增加1μmol/L,缺血性脑卒中及脑卒中发病风险分别降低1.2%(OR=0.988,95%CI:0.981~0.996,P=0.002)和1.5%(OR=0.985,95%CI:0.979~0.992,P<0.001)。结论:生理浓度范围内血清总胆红素水平与脑卒中发病风险呈线性负相关。展开更多
真实世界观察性研究评估工具(Assessment of Real World Observational Studies,ArRoWS)是由英国莱斯特大学糖尿病研究中心莱斯特真实世界证据工作组研发的用于评估真实世界证据研究质量的工具,具有较好的实用性。ArRoWS能快速和具体地...真实世界观察性研究评估工具(Assessment of Real World Observational Studies,ArRoWS)是由英国莱斯特大学糖尿病研究中心莱斯特真实世界证据工作组研发的用于评估真实世界证据研究质量的工具,具有较好的实用性。ArRoWS能快速和具体地评估使用电子健康记录信息的真实世界证据研究的质量,ArRoWS共包含16个条目,其中9个条目为通用条目,另外7个条目为与特定研究设计相关的条目。本文就ArRoWS的制订背景、制订过程、评价条目、评价标准和使用方法等进行介绍,以期为国内的真实世界研究者提供参考。展开更多
AIM:To evaluate whether red meat intake is related to the risk of endometrial cancer(EC) using meta-analysis.METHODS:We searched Pub Med,EMBASE,and the Cochrane Library up to June 2013,using common keywords related to...AIM:To evaluate whether red meat intake is related to the risk of endometrial cancer(EC) using meta-analysis.METHODS:We searched Pub Med,EMBASE,and the Cochrane Library up to June 2013,using common keywords related to red meat and EC.Case-control studies and cohort studies comparing the risk of endometrial cancer among categories by the amount of intake were included.Eleven case-control studies and five cohort studies met our criteria.We performed a conventional and a dose-response meta-analysis of case-control studies using the Der Simonian-Laird method for random-effects.For cohort studies we performed a conventional meta-analysis.Publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test.RESULTS:In the meta-analysis of 11 case-control studies including 5419 cases and 12654 controls,higher red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of EC [summary relative risk(SRR) = 1.43,95%CI:1.15-1.79;I2 = 73.3% comparing extreme intake categories).In a dose-response analysis,for red meat intake of 100 g/d,SRR was 1.84(95%CI:1.64-2.05).In contrast,in the meta-analysis of five prospective studies including a total of 2549 cases among 247746 participants,no significant association between red meat intake and EC risk(SRR = 0.97,95%CI:0.85-1.11;I2 = 4.9% comparing extreme intake categories) was observed.CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis found a significantlinear association between red meat intake and EC risk based on case-control studies but this was not confirmed in prospective studies.展开更多
Demographics, access to new treatment, altruistic motivations and continuity of care have been shown to influence motivation to participate in clinical trials. Less is known however, about factors that motivate resear...Demographics, access to new treatment, altruistic motivations and continuity of care have been shown to influence motivation to participate in clinical trials. Less is known however, about factors that motivate research participants to agree to take part in observational studies and provide a biologic specimen. This study evaluates and quantitates factors that motivate participation in observational studies and provide a biospecimen among cancer patients, their family members, and controls. An online survey was completed by 450 participants from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Overall, the benefit to society and the research institution reputation were the most important motivators for participation. Cancer cases were significantly more likely to endorse personal meaningfulness as a factor for participation compared to those without cancer and women were 50% more likely than men to believe that a family benefit is an important determinant of research participation. Researcher and institutional trustworthiness as well as security of stored data were most important when deciding whether to provide a biological sample, with differences seen by gender and history of cancer. This study demonstrated which factors are most important to participants when considering participation in an observational study and donating a biospecimen. Motivational factors significantly differed by gender as well as history and stage of cancer. The application of these study results may improve participation rates in cohort studies.展开更多
Objective: To characterize the methods of design and analysis currently adopted in survey research of school-based observational studies for smoking, and to identify the common pitfalls made by researchers. Methods: T...Objective: To characterize the methods of design and analysis currently adopted in survey research of school-based observational studies for smoking, and to identify the common pitfalls made by researchers. Methods: The systematic review was conducted in 2009 and consisted of observational studies in school settings published between January 2005 and January 2009. Smoking status was the main outcome of interest. Following Cochrane style, five steps were followed: setting selection criteria for studies and conducting a literature search;review of abstracts;review of complete articles;data extraction and quality assessment of included studies;and, finally, synthesis of studies. Results: Of the 292 abstracts retrieved, 45 (15.4%) articles were selected for the final review. Inconsistencies were found in the definition of smoking behaviour which impeded generalisability. Individual-level factors had importance, but environmental level factors were also important in studying the aetiology of smoking. Results showed that studies inappropriately reported sample size estimation and important confounding factors. Hierarchical linear modelling, random effects modelling and structural equation modelling were employed in comparatively few studies. Conclusions: There were concerns regarding data analysis of complex surveys. Fifty five percent of reviewed studies ignored environmental effects which may have produced unreliable inferences. Multi-level analysis assisted in understanding school-level effects.展开更多
基金Supported by International Cooperation Project of the Guangzhou Science and Technology Bureau, No. 2011J5200017Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Development Program, No. 2011B031800207
文摘AIM: To investigate if there is an association between hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the risk of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: All relevant studies published before 11 October, 2012 were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the Cochrane Library databases and with cross-referencing. The observational studies that reported RR or OR estimates with 95%CIs for the association between HBV or HCV and pancreatic cancer were included. A random-effects model was used to summarize meta-analytic estimates. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was applied to assess the quality of the methodology in the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 eligible studies were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, chronic hepatitis B and inactive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carrier state (HBsAg positive) had a significantly increased risk of pancreatic cancer with OR of 1.20 (95%CI: 1.01-1.39), especially in the Chinese population (OR = 1.30, 95%CI: 1.05-1.56). Past exposure to HBV (possible occult HBV infection) had an increased OR of pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.05-1.42), especially among those patients without natural immunity [anti hepatitis B core (HBc) positive/hepatitis B surface antibody (anti HBs) negative], with OR of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.13-2.22). However, past exposure to HBV with natural immunity (anti-HBc positive/anti-HBs positive) had no association with pancreatic cancer development, with OR 0.98 (95%CI: 0.80-1.16), nor did the HBV active replication (hepatitis B e antigen positive status), with OR 0.98 (95%CI: 0.27-1.68). The risk of pancreatic cancer among anti-HBs positive patients was significantly lower than among anti-HBs negative patients (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.46-0.62). Past exposure to HCV also resulted in an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (OR = 1.26, 95%CI: 1.03-1.50). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Evidence of publication bias for HBV/HCV infection-pancreatic cancer association was not found.
文摘真实世界观察性研究评估工具(Assessment of Real World Observational Studies,ArRoWS)是由英国莱斯特大学糖尿病研究中心莱斯特真实世界证据工作组研发的用于评估真实世界证据研究质量的工具,具有较好的实用性。ArRoWS能快速和具体地评估使用电子健康记录信息的真实世界证据研究的质量,ArRoWS共包含16个条目,其中9个条目为通用条目,另外7个条目为与特定研究设计相关的条目。本文就ArRoWS的制订背景、制订过程、评价条目、评价标准和使用方法等进行介绍,以期为国内的真实世界研究者提供参考。
基金Supported by A grant of the Korean Health Technology R and D Project,Ministry of Health and Welfare,Republic of Korea,No.HI12C0050
文摘AIM:To evaluate whether red meat intake is related to the risk of endometrial cancer(EC) using meta-analysis.METHODS:We searched Pub Med,EMBASE,and the Cochrane Library up to June 2013,using common keywords related to red meat and EC.Case-control studies and cohort studies comparing the risk of endometrial cancer among categories by the amount of intake were included.Eleven case-control studies and five cohort studies met our criteria.We performed a conventional and a dose-response meta-analysis of case-control studies using the Der Simonian-Laird method for random-effects.For cohort studies we performed a conventional meta-analysis.Publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test.RESULTS:In the meta-analysis of 11 case-control studies including 5419 cases and 12654 controls,higher red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of EC [summary relative risk(SRR) = 1.43,95%CI:1.15-1.79;I2 = 73.3% comparing extreme intake categories).In a dose-response analysis,for red meat intake of 100 g/d,SRR was 1.84(95%CI:1.64-2.05).In contrast,in the meta-analysis of five prospective studies including a total of 2549 cases among 247746 participants,no significant association between red meat intake and EC risk(SRR = 0.97,95%CI:0.85-1.11;I2 = 4.9% comparing extreme intake categories) was observed.CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis found a significantlinear association between red meat intake and EC risk based on case-control studies but this was not confirmed in prospective studies.
文摘Demographics, access to new treatment, altruistic motivations and continuity of care have been shown to influence motivation to participate in clinical trials. Less is known however, about factors that motivate research participants to agree to take part in observational studies and provide a biologic specimen. This study evaluates and quantitates factors that motivate participation in observational studies and provide a biospecimen among cancer patients, their family members, and controls. An online survey was completed by 450 participants from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Overall, the benefit to society and the research institution reputation were the most important motivators for participation. Cancer cases were significantly more likely to endorse personal meaningfulness as a factor for participation compared to those without cancer and women were 50% more likely than men to believe that a family benefit is an important determinant of research participation. Researcher and institutional trustworthiness as well as security of stored data were most important when deciding whether to provide a biological sample, with differences seen by gender and history of cancer. This study demonstrated which factors are most important to participants when considering participation in an observational study and donating a biospecimen. Motivational factors significantly differed by gender as well as history and stage of cancer. The application of these study results may improve participation rates in cohort studies.
文摘Objective: To characterize the methods of design and analysis currently adopted in survey research of school-based observational studies for smoking, and to identify the common pitfalls made by researchers. Methods: The systematic review was conducted in 2009 and consisted of observational studies in school settings published between January 2005 and January 2009. Smoking status was the main outcome of interest. Following Cochrane style, five steps were followed: setting selection criteria for studies and conducting a literature search;review of abstracts;review of complete articles;data extraction and quality assessment of included studies;and, finally, synthesis of studies. Results: Of the 292 abstracts retrieved, 45 (15.4%) articles were selected for the final review. Inconsistencies were found in the definition of smoking behaviour which impeded generalisability. Individual-level factors had importance, but environmental level factors were also important in studying the aetiology of smoking. Results showed that studies inappropriately reported sample size estimation and important confounding factors. Hierarchical linear modelling, random effects modelling and structural equation modelling were employed in comparatively few studies. Conclusions: There were concerns regarding data analysis of complex surveys. Fifty five percent of reviewed studies ignored environmental effects which may have produced unreliable inferences. Multi-level analysis assisted in understanding school-level effects.
