Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

/pdf/bias-in-meta-analysis-detected-by-a-simple-graphical-test-5erh428s5c.pdf

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Background and Purpose—The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audienc...

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-early-management-of-patients-with-acute-19udbft6e7.pdf

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, SCM, FAHA Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH Stephanie E. Chiuve, ScD Mary Cushman, MD, MSc, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, FAHA Rajat Deo, MD, MTR Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH James Floyd, MD, MS Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Cathleen Gillespie, MS Carmen R. Isasi, MD, PhD, FAHA Monik C. Jiménez, ScD, SM Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD Suzanne E. Judd, PhD Daniel Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, MPH, FAHA Simin Liu, MD, ScD, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Rachel H. Mackey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, FAHA Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, FAHA Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA Dilip K. Pandey, MBBS, MS, PhD, FAHA Ravi R. Thiagarajan, MD, MPH Mathew J. Reeves, PhD Matthew Ritchey, PT, DPT, OCS, MPH Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, FAHA Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, FAHA Amytis Towfighi, MD Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH Melanie B. Turner, MPH Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD Joshua Z. Willey, MD, MS John T. Wilkins, MD Jason HY. Wu, MSc, PhD, FAHA Heather M. Alger, PhD Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Paul Muntner, PhD, MHSc On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Author(s): Writing Group Members; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Benjamin, Emelia J; Go, Alan S; Arnett, Donna K; Blaha, Michael J; Cushman, Mary; Das, Sandeep R; de Ferranti, Sarah; Despres, Jean-Pierre; Fullerton, Heather J; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Isasi, Carmen R; Jimenez, Monik C; Judd, Suzanne E; Kissela, Brett M; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Liu, Simin; Mackey, Rachel H; Magid, David J; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Muntner, Paul; Mussolino, Michael E; Nasir, Khurram; Neumar, Robert W; Nichol, Graham; Palaniappan, Latha; Pandey, Dilip K; Reeves, Mathew J; Rodriguez, Carlos J; Rosamond, Wayne; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Towfighi, Amytis; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Woo, Daniel; Yeh, Robert W; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND\nOrganised stroke unit care is provided by multidisciplinary teams that exclusively manage stroke patients in a dedicated ward (stroke, acute, rehabilitation, comprehensive), with a mobile stroke team or within a generic disability service (mixed rehabilitation ward).\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo assess the effect of stroke unit care compared with alternative forms of care for patients following a stroke.\n\n\nSEARCH STRATEGY\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched April 2006), the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted researchers in the field.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nRandomised and prospective controlled clinical trials comparing organised inpatient stroke unit care with an alternative service.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nTwo review authors initially assessed eligibility and trial quality. Descriptive details and trial data were then checked with the co-ordinators of the original trials.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nThirty-one trials, involving 6936 participants, compared stroke unit care with an alternative service; more organised care was consistently associated with improved outcomes. Twenty-six trials (5592 participants) compared stroke unit care with general wards. Stroke unit care showed reductions in the odds of death recorded at final (median one year) follow up (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98; P = 0.02), the odds of death or institutionalised care (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; P = 0.0006) and death or dependency (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; P = 0.001). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the observed benefits remained when the analysis was restricted to trials that used formal randomisation procedures with blinded outcome assessment. Outcomes were independent of patient age, sex or stroke severity, but appeared to be better in stroke units based in a discrete ward. There was no indication that organised stroke unit care resulted in a longer hospital stay.\n\n\nAUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS\nStroke patients who receive organised inpatient care in a stroke unit are more likely to be alive, independent, and living at home one year after the stroke. The benefits were most apparent in units based in a discrete ward. No systematic increase was observed in the length of inpatient stay.

Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke

Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised in-patient (stroke unit) care after stroke.

Do stroke units save lives

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE\nWe sought to clarify the way in which organized inpatient (stroke unit) care can produce reductions in case fatality and in the need for institutional care after stroke.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe performed a secondary analysis of a collaborative systematic review of all randomized trials that compared organized inpatient (stroke unit) care with contemporary conventional care. Nineteen trials were included, of which 18 (3246 patients) could provide outcome data on death, place of residence, and final functional outcome. Data were less complete (but always available for at least 12 trials; 1611 patients) for subgroup analyses examining timing and cause of death and outcomes in patients with different levels of severity of initial stroke.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe reduction in case fatality of patients managed in a stroke unit setting developed between 1 and 4 weeks after the index stroke. The reduction in the odds of death was evident across all causes of death and most marked for those deaths considered to be secondary to immobility. However, data were insufficient to permit a firm conclusion. The relative increase in the number of patients discharged home from stroke units as opposed to conventional care was largely attributable to an increase in the number of patients returning home physically independent. Across the range of stroke severity, stroke unit care was associated with nonsignificant increases in the number of patients regaining independence.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nWithin the limitations of the available data, we conclude that organized inpatient stroke unit care probably benefits a wide range of stroke patients in a variety of different ways, ie, reducing death from secondary complications of stroke and reducing the need for institutional care through a reduction in disability.

How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials

A randomised controlled trial of two management regimens was carried out in women patients over 65 years of age with hip fractures. Ninety seven patients were admitted to a designated orthopaedic geriatric unit and 125 to orthopaedic wards. No difference was observed in mortality, length of stay, or placement of patients between the two groups. More medical conditions were recognised and treated in patients in the orthopaedic geriatric unit group. It is concluded that designated orthopaedic geriatric units can provide medical care to these patients and should be administered without additional cost.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/297/6656/1116.full.pdf

B.O. Williams

Papers

Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke

Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised in-patient (stroke unit) care after stroke.

Do stroke units save lives

How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials

Prospective randomised study of an orthopaedic geriatric inpatient service.