Anna-Bettina Haidich

Bio: Anna-Bettina Haidich is an academic researcher from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 157 publications receiving 5066 citations. Previous affiliations of Anna-Bettina Haidich include Harvard University & RMIT University.

Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies

Abstract: ContextThere is substantial debate about whether the results of nonrandomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized controlled trials on the same topic.ObjectivesTo compare results of randomized and nonrandomized studies that evaluated medical interventions and to examine characteristics that may explain discrepancies between randomized and nonrandomized studies.Data SourcesMEDLINE (1966–March 2000), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000), and major journals were searched.Study SelectionForty-five diverse topics were identified for which both randomized trials (n = 240) and nonrandomized studies (n = 168) had been performed and had been considered in meta-analyses of binary outcomes.Data ExtractionData on events per patient in each study arm and design and characteristics of each study considered in each meta-analysis were extracted and synthesized separately for randomized and nonrandomized studies.Data SynthesisVery good correlation was observed between the summary odds ratios of randomized and nonrandomized studies (r = 0.75; P<.001); however, nonrandomized studies tended to show larger treatment effects (28 vs 11; P = .009). Between-study heterogeneity was frequent among randomized trials alone (23%) and very frequent among nonrandomized studies alone (41%). The summary results of the 2 types of designs differed beyond chance in 7 cases (16%). Discrepancies beyond chance were less common when only prospective studies were considered (8%). Occasional differences in sample size and timing of publication were also noted between discrepant randomized and nonrandomized studies. In 28 cases (62%), the natural logarithm of the odds ratio differed by at least 50%, and in 15 cases (33%), the odds ratio varied at least 2-fold between nonrandomized studies and randomized trials.ConclusionsDespite good correlation between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies—in particular, prospective studies—discrepancies beyond chance do occur and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common.

Meta-analysis in medical research.

Abstract: The objectives of this paper are to provide an introduction to meta-analysis and to discuss the rationale for this type of research and other general considerations. Methods used to produce a rigorous meta-analysis are highlighted and some aspects of presentation and interpretation of meta-analysis are discussed.Meta-analysis is a quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about that body of research. Outcomes from a meta-analysis may include a more precise estimate of the effect of treatment or risk factor for disease, or other outcomes, than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis. The examination of variability or heterogeneity in study results is also a critical outcome. The benefits of meta-analysis include a consolidated and quantitative review of a large, and often complex, sometimes apparently conflicting, body of literature. The specification of the outcome and hypotheses that are tested is critical to the conduct of meta-analyses, as is a sensitive literature search. A failure to identify the majority of existing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions; however, there are methods of examining data to identify the potential for studies to be missing; for example, by the use of funnel plots. Rigorously conducted meta-analyses are useful tools in evidence-based medicine. The need to integrate findings from many studies ensures that meta-analytic research is desirable and the large body of research now generated makes the conduct of this research feasible.

Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. Results 40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (−8.52%, −11.14% to −5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (−1.49%, −1.86% to −1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems. Conclusions Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

Reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density in HIV-associated sensory neuropathy.

Abstract: Objective: To explore the relationship between intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) density in HIV-associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) to measurements of neuropathy severity and progression of HIV disease. Background: SN affects 30% of individuals with AIDS, and treatment is often ineffective. Recombinant human nerve growth factor (rhNGF) has been proposed as a trophic factor for unmyelinated nerve fibers injured in HIV-SN, and a clinical trial has recently concluded. Skin biopsy with IENF density determination has emerged as a diagnostic test for patients with small-fiber sensory neuropathy. Methods: Sixty-two of the 270 patients with HIV-SN who participated in the trial of rhNGF were included in a substudy examining epidermal nerve fibers. IENF density was compared with neuropathic pain intensity (measured with the Gracely Pain Scale), patient and physician global pain assessments, quantitative sensory testing, CD4 counts, and plasma HIV RNA levels both at baseline and at conclusion of the placebo-controlled phase. Results: IENF density was inversely correlated with neuropathic pain as measured by patient (p = 0.004) and physician (p = 0.05) global pain assessments, but not using the Gracely Pain Scale. Decreased IENF density at the distal leg was associated with lower CD4 counts and higher plasma HIV RNA levels. IENF density measurements were stable over time. Conclusions: IENF loss at the distal leg is associated with increased neuropathic pain, lower CD4 counts, and higher plasma viral load in HIV-SN. The robustness of the longitudinal measurement of IENF density supports its use in future longitudinal studies and clinical trials.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Abstract: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Abstract: Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract: There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract: Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. It can be proven that most claimed research fi ndings are false.

Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II.

Abstract: Objective To provide a single source for the best available estimates of the US prevalence of and number of individuals affected by osteoarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, gout, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome, as well as the symptoms of neck and back pain. A companion article (part I) addresses additional conditions.