David Reynolds

Bio: David Reynolds is an academic researcher from Swansea University. The author has contributed to research in topics: World War II & Educational research. The author has an hindex of 65, co-authored 295 publications receiving 31648 citations. Previous affiliations of David Reynolds include University of Southampton & University of Wales.

A mutation in a case of early onset narcolepsy and a generalized absence of hypocretin peptides in human narcoleptic brains

Abstract: We explored the role of hypocretins in human narcolepsy through histopathology of six narcolepsy brains and mutation screening of Hcrt, Hcrtr1 and Hcrtr2 in 74 patients of various human leukocyte antigen and family history status. One Hcrt mutation, impairing peptide trafficking and processing, was found in a single case with early onset narcolepsy. In situ hybridization of the perifornical area and peptide radioimmunoassays indicated global loss of hypocretins, without gliosis or signs of inflammation in all human cases examined. Although hypocretin loci do not contribute significantly to genetic predisposition, most cases of human narcolepsy are associated with a deficient hypocretin system.

The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research

Abstract: Part One: The Historical and Intellectual Foundations of School Effectiveness Research 1.An Introduction to School Effectiveness Research 2.Current Topics and Approaches in School Effectiveness Research: The Contemporary Field Part Two: The Knowledge Base of School Effectiveness Research 3.The Methodology and Scientific Properties of School Effectiveness Research 4.The Processes of School Effectiveness 5.Context Issues within School Effectiveness Research Part Three: The Cutting Edge Issues of School Effectiveness Research 6.Some Methodological Issues in School Effectiveness Research 7.School Effectiveness and School Improvement 8.School Effectiveness: The International Dimension 9.School Effectiveness and Education Indicators 10.Theory Development in School Effectiveness Part Four: The Future of School Effectiveness Research 11. School Effectiveness Research and the Social and Behavioural Sciences 12.The Future Agenda for School Effectiveness Research

PKD2, a Gene for Polycystic Kidney Disease That Encodes an Integral Membrane Protein

Abstract: A second gene for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease was identified by positional cloning. Nonsense mutations in this gene (PKD2) segregated with the disease in three PKD2 families. The predicted 968-amino acid sequence of the PKD2 gene product has six transmembrane spans with intracellular amino- and carboxyl-termini. The PKD2 protein has amino acid similarity with PKD1, the Caenorhabditis elegans homolog of PKD1, and the family of voltage-activated calcium (and sodium) channels, and it contains a potential calcium-binding domain.

Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study

Abstract: Objective: To quantify the impact of duplicate data on estimates of efficacy. Design: Systematic search for published full reports of randomised controlled trials investigating ondansetron9s effect on postoperative emesis. Abstracts were not considered. Data sources: Eighty four trials (11 980 patients receiving ondansetron) published between 1991 and September 1996. Main outcome measures: Percentage of duplicated trials and patient data. Estimation of antiemetic efficacy (prevention of emesis) of the most duplicated ondansetron regimen. Comparison between the efficacy of non-duplicated and duplicated data. Results: Data from nine trials had been published in 14 further reports, duplicating data from 3335 patients receiving ondansetron; none used a clear cross reference. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg versus placebo was investigated in 16 reports not subject to duplicate publication, three reports subject to duplicate publication, and six duplicates of those three reports. The number needed to treat to prevent vomiting within 24 hours was 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.9 to 15) in the 16 non-duplicated reports and 3.9 (3.3 to 4.8) in the three reports which were duplicated (P Conclusions: By searching systematically we found 17% of published full reports of randomised trials and 28% of the patient data were duplicated. Trials reporting greater treatment effect were significantly more likely to be duplicated. Inclusion of duplicated data in meta-analysis led to a 23% overestimation of ondansetron9s antiemetic efficacy. Key messages Although publishing the same data more than once is strongly discouraged, there is no evidence of the impact of duplicate data on meta-analysis Re-analysing an important trial, and cross referencing to original reports (overt duplication), may be necessary and valuable in some circumstances Covert duplication, masked by change of authors, of language, or by adding extra data, causes problems. One danger is that patient data are analysed more than once in meta-analysis 17% of systematically searched randomised trials of ondansetron as a postoperative antiemetic were covert duplicates and resulted in 28% of patient data being duplicated. None of these reports cross references the original source. Duplication lead to an overestimation of ondansetron9s antiemetic efficacy of 23%. Trials reporting greater treatment effect were significantly more likely to be duplicated Covert duplication of data has major implications for the assessment of drug efficacy and safety

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

Abstract: 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

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.