scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

John Concato

Bio: John Concato is an academic researcher from Yale University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Prostate cancer. The author has an hindex of 61, co-authored 241 publications receiving 26637 citations. Previous affiliations of John Concato include Boston University & Veterans Health Administration.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Findings indicate that low EPV can lead to major problems, and the regression coefficients were biased in both positive and negative directions, and paradoxical associations (significance in the wrong direction) were increased.

6,490 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results of well-designed observational studies (with either a cohort or a case-control design) do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment as compared with those in randomized, controlled trials on the same topic.
Abstract: Background In the hierarchy of research designs, the results of randomized, controlled trials are considered to be evidence of the highest grade, whereas observational studies are viewed as having less validity because they reportedly overestimate treatment effects. We used published meta-analyses to identify randomized clinical trials and observational studies that examined the same clinical topics. We then compared the results of the original reports according to the type of research design. Methods A search of the Medline data base for articles published in five major medical journals from 1991 to 1995 identified meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of either cohort or case–control studies that assessed the same intervention. For each of five topics, summary estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated on the basis of data from the individual randomized, controlled trials and the individual observational studies. Results For the five clinical topics and 99 r...

3,259 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The obstructive sleep apnea syndrome significantly increases the risk of stroke or death from any cause, and the increase is independent of other risk factors, including hypertension.
Abstract: background Previous studies have suggested that the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome may be an important risk factor for stroke. It has not been determined, however, whether the syndrome is independently related to the risk of stroke or death from any cause after adjustment for other risk factors, including hypertension. methods In this observational cohort study, consecutive patients underwent polysomnography, and subsequent events (strokes and deaths) were verified. The diagnosis of the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome was based on an apnea–hypopnea index of 5 or higher (five or more events per hour); patients with an apnea–hypopnea index of less than 5 served as the comparison group. Proportional-hazards analysis was used to determine the independent effect of the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome on the composite outcome of stroke or death from any cause. results Among 1022 enrolled patients, 697 (68 percent) had the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. At baseline, the mean apnea–hypopnea index in the patients with the syndrome was 35, as compared with a mean apnea–hypopnea index of 2 in the comparison group. In an unadjusted analysis, the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome was associated with stroke or death from any cause (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.30 to 3.86; P=0.004). After adjustment for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol-consumption status, body-mass index, and the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension, the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome retained a statistically significant association with stroke or death (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 3.48; P=0.01). In a trend analysis, increased severity of sleep apnea at baseline was associated with an increased risk of the development of the composite end point (P=0.005). conclusions The obstructive sleep apnea syndrome significantly increases the risk of stroke or death from any cause, and the increase is independent of other risk factors, including hypertension.

2,766 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The analytical effect of the number of events per variable (EPV) in a proportional hazards regression analysis was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation techniques for data from a randomized trial containing 673 patients and 252 deaths, in which seven predictor variables had an original significance level of p < 0.10.

1,650 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The purpose in the current research was to note the frequency with which multivariable analyses now appear in general medical journals, to identify some common problems and desirable precautions in the analyses, and to determine how well the challenges are being met.
Abstract: Purpose: To review the principles of multivariable analysis and to examine the application of multivariable statistical methods in general medical literature. Data Sources: A computer-assisted sear...

1,087 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
23 Sep 2019
TL;DR: 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.
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.

21,235 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is recommended that spirometry is required for the clinical diagnosis of COPD to avoid misdiagnosis and to ensure proper evaluation of severity of airflow limitation.
Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.

17,023 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 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, resulting in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.
Abstract: 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.

15,454 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 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, resulting in a checklist of 22 items that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.
Abstract: 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 generalizability. 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 two-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. Eighteen 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.

13,974 citations

01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

9,618 citations