BACKGROUND: Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of death. This risk appears to be modulated by kidney dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease (DKD), its traits, and clinical correlates in a large sample of patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Clinical data of 20 464 patients with type 1 diabetes were extracted from electronic medical records. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and increased urinary albumin excretion were considered. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 46 ± 16 years, 55.0% were males, and duration of diabetes 19 ± 13 years. The frequency of diabetic kidney disease, low eGFR, and albuminuria was 23.5%, 8.1%, and 19.5%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis the presence of diabetic kidney disease was associated with age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.18), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.07), and worse glycemic control (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.21-1.28, for every 1% glycated hemoglobin increase). Diabetic kidney disease was also independently associated with an atherogenic lipid profile and increased systolic blood pressure. Glucose control, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and high density lipoprotein cholesterol were associated with both low eGFR and albuminuria. Male gender, retinopathy and smoke were related to albuminuria, being female was related to low eGFR, while SUA levels were associated with DKD, low eGFR and albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of patients with type 1 diabetes, diabetic kidney disease entails an unsafe cardiovascular risk profile. Hyperglycemia, arterial hypertension, and atherogenic lipid profile affected both low eGFR and albuminuria. Retinopathy and smoking were related only to albuminuria while being female and elevated serum uric acid were associated only with low eGFR.
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
Academia and Clinic18 August 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementFREEDavid Moher, PhD, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPH, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, and Douglas G. Altman, DSc, the PRISMA Group*David Moher, PhDFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPHFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, and Douglas G. Altman, DScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, the PRISMA Group*Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Editor's Note: In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in PLOS Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research (3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction (4). As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies (5). In 1987, Sacks and colleagues (6) evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement (7).In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (8). In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).Box 1. Conceptual Issues in the Evolution From QUOROM to PRISMA Download figure Download PowerPoint TerminologyThe terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration (9). A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.Developing the PRISMA StatementA three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant (10). For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update (11) of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol.Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper.Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available (12, 13), the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (14) now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability (15). Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question (16, 17) and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews.The PRISMA StatementThe PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Table S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.Table 1. Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review or Meta-AnalysisFigure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. Download figure Download PowerPoint From QUOROM to PRISMAThe new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.Table 2. Substantive Specific Changes Between the QUOROM Checklist and the PRISMA ChecklistThe flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process.EndorsementThe PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their instructions to authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration PaperIn addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced (18) following the style used for other reporting guidelines (19–21). The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA.DiscussionThe quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal (22–27). In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias (22), even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence (28) and its impact on the results of systematic reviews (29). Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately (30). Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness (31), diagnostic (32) or prognostic questions (33), genetic associations (34), and policy making (35). The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis (36).We have developed an explanatory document (18) to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors.Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development.References1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71. [PMID: 7933399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:1083-4. [PMID: 14604930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist. December 2006. Accessed at www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar4. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107-8. [PMID: 16005318] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485-8. [PMID: 3813259] LinkGoogle Scholar6. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450-5. [PMID: 3807986] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996;63:216-24. [PMID: 8692168] MedlineGoogle Scholar8. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Glossary. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2005. Accessed at www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar10. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:521-4. [PMID: 18471654] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006;367:881-3. [PMID: 16546523] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Accessed at www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar13. The Joanna Briggs Institute protocols & work in progress. 2009. Accessed at www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar14. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Editorial]. CMAJ. 2004;171:606-7. [PMID: 15367465] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004;363:1341-5. [PMID: 15110490] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:161-6. [PMID: 16432083] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-9. [PMID: 16415336] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W-65-94. LinkGoogle Scholar19. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94. [PMID: 11304107] LinkGoogle Scholar20. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1-12. [PMID: 12513067] LinkGoogle Scholar21. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163-94. [PMID: 17938389] LinkGoogle Scholar22. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:78. [PMID: 17388659] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:15-24. [PMID: 11205853] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:518-26. [PMID: 11679863] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004;5:17. [PMID: 15238972] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:700-9. [PMID: 11226105] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575-82. [PMID: 16277721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:11-33. Google Scholar29. Sutton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:175-92. Google Scholar30. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597-600. [PMID: 16974018] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:769-81. [PMID: 11694102] LinkGoogle Scholar32. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157-62. [PMID: 11463691] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001;323:224-8. [PMID: 11473921] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar34. Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001;29:306-9. [PMID: 11600885] CrossrefMedlineGoogle J, Oxman A, E. systematic reviews that inform health care and J Health [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle of meta-analyses using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle E, R, I, L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of studies by systematic reviews: results of the study. BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, R, P, et al; Working Group. an on quality of evidence and of BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle R, Cook DJ, A, et al; and An the quality of evidence and of in guidelines and J Crit Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle A, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. evidence for reporting of in randomized trials: of protocols to published articles. JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Schmid I, Altman DG. reporting bias in randomized trials by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle CA, P, protocols of systematic reviews: what was to what was JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle In to A Article, and Disclosure From Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United The following to the PRISMA Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine United PhD, University Hospital MD, Health Research & Health PLoS Medicine United PhD, Hospital of Ontario, A. & Research and PhD, PLoS Medicine the of United PhD, Cochrane Centre United and of and MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario J. PhD, University of United MD, PhD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, of Health MD, of and Medicine, University of MD, PhD, Medical United MD, The Cochrane Centre PhD, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, United MD, University of MD, PhD, Systematic Reviews United and for Health and University of the and Alessandro Liberati, MD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario MD, Centre for the of the of Health PhD, The United MD, Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, Annals of Internal Medicine for Medical MD, Health Research Centre Health and Technology Assessment Ontario, Canada; at the of the first meeting of the group, Ontario, MD, University of Hospital of Ontario, PhD, Health International G. MD, PhD, Evidence-Based Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, The Cochrane Cochrane Collaboration United at the of the first meeting of the group, United and MD, Institute of University of Ottawa Ontario, PRISMA was by the Canadian Institutes of Health Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy; Research Clinical Evidence The Cochrane Collaboration; and Liberati is in through of the of University and Altman is by Research Moher is by a University of Ottawa Research of the any in the or of the PRISMA no a role in the Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Canada; Moher and Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, United of the PRISMA is in the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and of Studies Health Explanation and Elaboration Alessandro Liberati Douglas G. Altman Jennifer
Despite the variability in sampling and methodology, the majority of the family, twin and adoption studies suggest that alcoholism is familial, a significant proportion of which can be attributed to genetic factors. However, the specific components of alcoholism that may be inherited have yet to be identified. To date, there are no biological trait markers for which there is evidence for specificity for alcoholism. The three major levels of enquiry regarding possible mechanisms for the transmission of alcoholism and the involvement of genes and gene products in its development are factors related to exposure, metabolism, or pharmacological effects of ethanol. Exposure to ethanol is an obvious precondition for the development of tolerance and/or dependence. Therefore, identification of factors which enhance (or decrease) exposure are important goals of studies of the pathogenesis of alcoholism. It is likely that demographic, cultural and environmental factors (i.e. sex, age, religious affiliation, social group influences, income, availability of alcohol, etc.) play a crucial role in mediating exposure to alcohol. The key to alcoholism is likely to reside in the effects of alcohol on the brain. In contrast to nicotine, the opioids, and catecholamines, no specific receptor for ethanol has been found. Thus, one major focus of current research on possible central nervous system (CNS) mechanisms for the effect of alcohol includes assessment of the role of alcohol in the stimulation of brain reward or reinforcement systems. Alternately, alcohol may produce dependence by normalizing abnormal baseline states such as irritability, hyperexcitability, dysphoria, impulsiveness, or stress/tension level. The results of animal studies have yielded information on the central effects of alcohol including sensitivity of neuronal membranes, proteins, and ion channels to alcohol, and factors related to the binding and release of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators including dopamine, norepinephrine, gamma aminobutyric acid, pro-opiomelanocortin, glutamate receptors and the endorphin system (Institute of Medicine, 1987). In addition to possible genetic explanations for the strong degree of familial aggregation of alcoholism, alternative explanations need to be further evaluated. These include: modelling of parental behaviour; possible changes in the susceptibility of the foetus to alcohol as a result of in utero maternal ingestion of alcohol; results of negligent rearing manifested in dietary deficiency, exposure to toxic substances, or brain trauma, which so often characterize the homes of alcoholic parents; or damage to paternal germ cells from alcohol.
Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional, pero la información difundida sobre esas investigaciones es a menudo insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus puntos fuertes y débiles para la generalización de sus conclusiones En el marco de la iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), se formularon recomendaciones sobre lo que debería contener una notificación precisa de un estudio observacional. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudio: de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. En septiembre de 2004 organizamos un taller de 2 días con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de verificación de distintos puntos. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en discusiones mantenidas por correo electrónico con los principales participantes en STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y diversas consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos (la declaración STROBE) que guardan relación con el título, el resumen, la introducción y las secciones de métodos, resultados y discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho puntos son comunes a las 3 modalidades de estudio, y 4 se refieren específicamente a los estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles o transversales. Se ha publicado separadamente un documento de explicación y elaboración al que puede accederse libremente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la declaración STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la publicación de los estudios observacionales. Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a che-cklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web based survey and revised during a three day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org). To encourage dissemination of the TRIPOD Statement, this article is freely accessible on the <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in <i>BJOG</i>, <i>British Journal of Cancer</i>, <i>British Journal of Surgery</i>, <i>BMC Medicine</i>, <i>The BMJ</i>, <i>Circulation</i>, <i>Diabetic Medicine</i>, <i>European Journal of Clinical Investigation</i>, <i>European Urology</i>, and <i>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</i>. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. An accompanying explanation and elaboration article is freely available only on www.annals.org; <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> holds copyright for that article.
Welcome to Annals of Global Health,Annals of Global Health is a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online journal dedicated to publishing high quality articles dedicated to all aspects of global health. The journal's mission is to advance global health, promote research, and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all people, advance health equity, and promote wise stewardship of the earth's environment. The latest journal impact factor is 3.64.Annals of Global Health is supported by the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College. It was founded in 1934 by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. It is a partner journal of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health. Authors of articles accepted for publication in Annals of Global Health will be asked to pay an Article Publication Charge (APC) to cover publication costs. This charge can normally be sourced from your funder or institution. We are committed to supporting authors from all countries to publish their work in Annals of Global Health regardless of national income level, and to achieve this goal, we waive the Article Publication Charge for manuscripts where all authors are from low-income or lower-middle-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). From time to time, Annals of Global Health publishes Special Collections, a series of articles organized around a common theme in global health. Recent Special Collections have included “Strengthening Women’s Leadership in Global Health”, “Decolonizing Global Health Education”, and “Capacity Building for Global Health Leadership Training”. Global health workers interested in developing a Special Collection are strongly encouraged to contact the Managing Editor in advance to discuss the project.
Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.
The prevalence of dementia varies substantially worldwide. This is partially attributed to the lack of methodological uniformity among studies, including diagnostic criteria and different mean population ages. However, even after considering these potential sources of bias, differences in age-adjusted dementia prevalence still exist among regions of the world. In Latin America, the prevalence of dementia is higher than expected for its level of population aging. This phenomenon occurs due to the combination of low average educational attainment and high vascular risk profile. Among developed countries, Japan seems to have the lowest prevalence of dementia. Studies that evaluated the immigration effect of the Japanese and blacks to USA evidenced that acculturation increases the relative proportion of AD cases compared to VaD. In the Middle East and Africa, the number of dementia cases will be expressive by 2040. In general, low educational background and other socioeconomic factors have been associated with high risk of obesity, sedentarism, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and metabolic syndrome, all of which also raise the risk of VaD and AD. Regulating these factors is critical to generate the commitment to make dementia a public health priority.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight the significant impact of social relationships on health and illness and suggest implications of these effects for health promotion efforts among older adults. DATA SOURCES: Published studies on social relationships and health (or health behaviors) for the period 1970-1998 were identified through MEDLINE by using the key words social relationships, social support, and health, as well as review of health-related journals such as the American Journal of Epidemiology, Annals of Epidemiology, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Social Science and Medicine, and the Journals of Gerontology. STUDY SELECTION: Major published original research was considered. Where published research was too extensive for full discussion of all studies, preference was given to studies focusing on older adults and those using stronger methodology (i.e., representative samples, longitudinal data, or multivariate analyses controlling for potential confounders). DATA EXTRACTION: Reported findings were organized in terms of three major categories: (1) results related to major health outcomes such as mortality, CHD, and depression; (2) findings related to health behaviors; and (3) findings related to potential biological pathways for observed health effects of social relationships. DATA SYNTHESIS: Protective effects of social integration with respect to mortality risk among older adults are the most thoroughly documented, although protective effects have also been documented with respect to risks for mental and physical health outcomes and for better recovery after disease onset. There is also now a growing awareness of the potential for negative health effects from social relationships that are characterized by more negative patterns of critical and/or demanding interactions, including increased risks for depression and angina. Biological pathways are suggested by evidence that more negative social interactions are associated with physiological profiles characterized by elevated stress hormones, increased cardiovascular activity, and depressed immune function, whereas more positive, supportive social interactions are associated with the opposite profile. CONCLUSIONS: Available data clearly indicate that social relationships have the potential for both health promoting and health damaging effects in older adults, and that there are biologically plausible pathways for these effects. Such evidence suggests that aspects of the social environment could play an important role in future health promotion efforts for older adults, although careful consideration of both potentially positive as well as negative social influences is needed.
The science of networks has revolutionised research into the dynamics of interacting elements. It could be argued that epidemiology in particular has embraced the potential of network theory more than any other discipline. Here we review the growing body of research concerning the spread of infectious diseases on networks, focusing on the interplay between network theory and epidemiology. The review is split into four main sections, which examine: the types of network relevant to epidemiology; the multitude of ways these networks can be characterised; the statistical methods that can be applied to infer the epidemiological parameters on a realised network; and finally simulation and analytical methods to determine epidemic dynamics on a given network. Given the breadth of areas covered and the ever-expanding number of publications, a comprehensive review of all work is impossible. Instead, we provide a personalised overview into the areas of network epidemiology that have seen the greatest progress in recent years or have the greatest potential to provide novel insights. As such, considerable importance is placed on analytical approaches and statistical methods which are both rapidly expanding fields. Throughout this review we restrict our attention to epidemiological issues.
Low back pain is a symptom that cannot be validated by an external standard. It is a disorder with many possible etiologies, occurring in many groups of the population, and with many definitions. Low back pain is a common problem, with a prevalence in the United States ranging from 8% to 56%. It is estimated that 28% experience disabling low back pain sometime during their lives, 14% experience episodes lasting at least 2 weeks, 8% of the entire working population will be disabled in any given year, and the lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 65% to 80%. It is believed that most episodes of low back pain will be short-lived and that 80% to 90% of attacks of low back pain resolve in about 6 weeks, irrespective of the administration or type of treatment. However, multiple studies in the late 90s showed recurrent or chronic low back pain, evaluated at 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months, ranging from 35% to 79%. Risk factors of low back pain are multifactorial, with many possible etiologies. Multiple risk factors of low back pain and lower-extremity pain include physical factors, social demographic characteristics, habits, and psychosocial factors. This review will discuss the epidemiology of low back pain, with emphasis on frequency, causes, and consequences of low back pain; the influence of age, gender, morphologic characteristics, and genetics; and the influence of occupational, mechanical, social, habitual, and psychological factors.
Although the term "behavioral epidemiology" has been used in the literature since the late 1970s, it has not been clearly defined. A behavioral epidemiology framework is proposed to specify a systematic sequence of studies on health-related behaviors, leading to evidence-based interventions directed at populations. The phase are: 1--establish links between behaviors and health; 2--develop measures of the behavior; 3--identify influences on the behavior; 4--evaluate interventions to change the behavior; 5--translate research into practice. Mature research areas are expected to have more studies in the latter phases. Recent volumes of four journals (Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Health Psychology, Journal of Nutrition Education, Tobacco Control) were audited, and empirical studies were classified into these phases. Phase 3 studies were common (identifying influences on behaviors; 27% to 50%), and Phase 2 studies were least common (measurement; 0% to 15%). Annals of Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology were low on Phase 4 (intervention studies; 9% and 11%, respectively). The Journal of Nutrition Education was the only journal reviewed that had a substantial number (20%) of Phase 5 studies (translating research into practice). The behavioral epidemiology framework can be used to evaluate the status of research on health behaviors and to guide research policies.
Background. In the last decades, thyroid cancer incidence has continuously and sharply increased all over the world. This review analyzes the possible reasons of this increase. Summary. Many experts believe that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer is apparent, because of the increased detection of small cancers in the preclinical stage. However, a true increase is also possible, as suggested by the observation that large tumors have also increased and gender differences and birth cohort effects are present. Moreover, thyroid cancer mortality, in spite of earlier diagnosis and better treatment, has not decreased but is rather increasing. Therefore, some environmental carcinogens in the industrialized lifestyle may have specifically affected the thyroid. Among potential carcinogens, the increased exposure to medical radiations is the most likely risk factor. Other factors specific for the thyroid like increased iodine intake and increased prevalence of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis cannot be excluded, while other factors like the increasing prevalence of obesity are not specific for the thyroid. Conclusions. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer is most likely due to a combination of an apparent increase due to more sensitive diagnostic procedures and of a true increase, a possible consequence of increased population exposure to radiation and to other still unrecognized carcinogens.
Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis can be caused by a broad range of pathogens; however, bacterial infections represent the majority of sepsis cases. Up to 42% of sepsis presentations are culture negative, suggesting a non-bacterial cause. Despite this, diagnosis of viral sepsis remains very rare. Almost any virus can cause sepsis in vulnerable patients (e.g., neonates, infants, and other immunosuppressed groups). The prevalence of viral sepsis is not known, nor is there enough information to make an accurate estimate. The initial standard of care for all cases of sepsis, even those that are subsequently proven to be culture negative, is the immediate use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. In the absence of definite diagnostic criteria for viral sepsis, or at least to exclude bacterial sepsis, this inevitably leads to unnecessary antimicrobial use, with associated consequences for antimicrobial resistance, effects on the host microbiome and excess healthcare costs. It is important to understand non-bacterial causes of sepsis so that inappropriate treatment can be minimised, and appropriate treatments can be developed to improve outcomes. In this review, we summarise what is known about viral sepsis, its most common causes, and how the immune responses to severe viral infections can contribute to sepsis. We also discuss strategies to improve our understanding of viral sepsis, and ways we can integrate this new information into effective treatment.
The etiology of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is unknown. There are many insights, however, from epidemiologic/demographic information. A systematic medical literature review regarding DDH was performed. There is a predominance of left-sided (64.0%) and unilateral disease (63.4%). The incidence per 1000 live births ranges from 0.06 in Africans in Africa to 76.1 in Native Americans. There is significant variability in incidence within each racial group by geographic location. The incidence of clinical neonatal hip instability at birth ranges from 0.4 in Africans to 61.7 in Polish Caucasians. Predictors of DDH are breech presentation, positive family history, and gender (female). Children born premature, with low birth weights, or to multifetal pregnancies are somewhat protected from DDH. Certain HLA A, B, and D types demonstrate an increase in DDH. Chromosome 17q21 is strongly associated with DDH. Ligamentous laxity and abnormalities in collagen metabolism, estrogen metabolism, and pregnancy-associated pelvic instability are well-described associations with DDH. Many studies demonstrate an increase of DDH in the winter, both in the northern and southern hemispheres. Swaddling is strongly associated with DDH. Amniocentesis, premature labor, and massive radiation exposure may increase the risk of DDH. Associated conditions are congenital muscular torticollis and congenital foot deformities. The opposite hip is frequently abnormal when using rigorous radiographic assessments. The role of acetabular dysplasia and adult hip osteoarthritis is complex. Archeological studies demonstrate that the epidemiology of DDH may be changing.
Endometriosis is a "mysterious" disease and its exact cause has not yet been established. Among the etiological factors, congenital, environmental, epigenetic, autoimmune and allergic factors are listed. It is believed that the primary mechanism of the formation of endometriosis foci is retrograde menstruation, i.e., the passage of menstrual blood through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity and implantation of exfoliated endometrial cells. However, since this mechanism is also observed in healthy women, other factors must also be involved in the formation of endometriosis foci. Endometriosis is in many women the cause of infertility, chronic pain and the deterioration of the quality of life. It also represents a significant financial burden on health systems. The article presents a review of the literature on endometriosis-a disease affecting women throughout the world.
Obesity is a public health problem that has reached epidemic proportions with an increasing worldwide prevalence. The global emergence of obesity increases the risk of developing chronic metabolic disorders. Thus, it is an economic issue that increased the costs of the comorbidities associated. Moreover, in recent years, it has been demonstrated that obesity is associated with chronic systemic inflammation, this status is conditioned by the innate immune system activation in adipose tissue that promotes an increase in the production and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that contribute to the triggering of the systemic acute-phase response which is characterized by elevation of acute-phase protein levels. On this regard, low-grade chronic inflammation is a characteristic of various chronic diseases such as metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and some cancers, among others, which are also characterized by obesity condition. Thus, a growing body of evidence supports the important role that is played by the inflammatory response in obesity condition and the pathogenesis of chronic diseases related.
Annals of Global Health is a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online journal dedicated to publishing high quality articles dedicated to all aspects of global health. The journal's mission is to advance global health, promote research, and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all people, advance health equity, and promote wise stewardship of the earth's environment. The latest journal impact factor is 2.90. Annals of Global Health is supported by the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College. It was founded in 1934 by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. It is a partner journal of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health. From time to time, Annals of Global Health publishes Special Collections, a series of articles organized around a common theme in global health. Recent Special Collections have included "Local evidence and strategies in addressing NCDs Non-Communicable Diseases in Tanzania", "Universal Health Coverage through Integrated Care", and "The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health". Global health workers interested in developing a Special Collection are strongly encouraged to contact the Managing Editor in advance to discuss the project.