Stephen B. Thacker

Bio: Stephen B. Thacker is an academic researcher from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public health & Public health surveillance. The author has an hindex of 51, co-authored 156 publications receiving 25374 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen B. Thacker include University of New Hampshire.

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting

Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

Public health surveillance in the united states

Abstract: The purpose of this review is to describe the historical and current practice of public health surveillance [in the United States] to discuss new directions for surveillance both in terms of new public health priorities and new methodological tools and to assess the limitations of surveillance. (EXCERPT)

A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Estrogen Replacement Therapy on the Risk of Breast Cancer

Abstract: To quantify the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on breast cancer risk, we combined dose-response slopes of the relative risk of breast cancer against the duration of estrogen use across 16 studies. Using this summary dose-response slope, we calculated the proportional increase in risk of breast cancer for each year of estrogen use. For women who experienced any type of menopause, risk did not appear to increase until after at least 5 years of estrogen use. After 15 years of estrogen use, we found a 30% increase in the risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 1.6). The increase in risk was largely due to results of studies that included premenopausal women or women using estradiol (with or without progestin), studies for which the estimated relative risk was 2.2 (CI, 1.4 to 3.4) after 15 years. Among women with a family history of breast cancer, those who had ever used estrogen replacement had a significantly higher risk (3.4; CI, 2.0 to 6.0) than those who had not (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.7). (JAMA. 1991;265:1985-1990)

The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: a systematic review of the literature.

Abstract: THACKER, S. B., J. GILCHRIST, D. F. STROUP, and C. D. KIMSEY, JR. The Impact of Stretching on Sports Injury Risk: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 371–378, 2004. Purpose: We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of stretching as a tool to prevent injuries in sports and to make recommendations for research and prevention. Methods: Without language limitations, we searched electronic data bases, including MEDLINE (1966 –2002), Current Contents (1997–2002), Biomedical Collection (1993–1999), the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus, and then identified citations from papers retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Meta-analysis was limited to randomized trials or cohort studies for interventions that included stretching. Studies were excluded that lacked controls, in which stretching could not be assessed independently, or where studies did not include subjects in sporting or fitness activities. All articles were screened initially by one author. Six of 361 identified articles compared stretching with other methods to prevent injury. Data were abstracted by one author and then reviewed independently by three others. Data quality was assessed independently by three authors using a previously standardized instrument, and reviewers met to reconcile substantive differences in interpretation. We calculated weighted pooled odds ratios based on an intention-to-treat analysis as well as subgroup analyses by quality score and study design. Results: Stretching was not significantly associated with a reduction in total injuries (OR 0.93, CI 0.78 –1.11) and similar findings were seen in the subgroup analyses. Conclusion: There is not sufficient evidence to endorse or discontinue routine stretching before or after exercise to prevent injury among competitive or recreational athletes. Further research, especially well-conducted randomized controlled trials, is urgently needed to determine the proper role of stretching in sports. Key Words: ATHLETES, CONDITIONING, META-ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

Abstract: Background. Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. Objective. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (indepth interviews and focus groups). Methods. We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Results. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Conclusions. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting

Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Context Despite decades of accumulated observational evidence, the balance of risks and benefits for hormone use in healthy postmenopausal women remains uncertain Objective To assess the major health benefits and risks of the most commonly used combined hormone preparation in the United States Design Estrogen plus progestin component of the Women's Health Initiative, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial (planned duration, 85 years) in which 16608 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baseline were recruited by 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998 Interventions Participants received conjugated equine estrogens, 0625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 25 mg/d, in 1 tablet (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102) Main outcomes measures The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes Results On May 31, 2002, after a mean of 52 years of follow-up, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo because the test statistic for invasive breast cancer exceeded the stopping boundary for this adverse effect and the global index statistic supported risks exceeding benefits This report includes data on the major clinical outcomes through April 30, 2002 Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) (nominal 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were as follows: CHD, 129 (102-163) with 286 cases; breast cancer, 126 (100-159) with 290 cases; stroke, 141 (107-185) with 212 cases; PE, 213 (139-325) with 101 cases; colorectal cancer, 063 (043-092) with 112 cases; endometrial cancer, 083 (047-147) with 47 cases; hip fracture, 066 (045-098) with 106 cases; and death due to other causes, 092 (074-114) with 331 cases Corresponding HRs (nominal 95% CIs) for composite outcomes were 122 (109-136) for total cardiovascular disease (arterial and venous disease), 103 (090-117) for total cancer, 076 (069-085) for combined fractures, 098 (082-118) for total mortality, and 115 (103-128) for the global index Absolute excess risks per 10 000 person-years attributable to estrogen plus progestin were 7 more CHD events, 8 more strokes, 8 more PEs, and 8 more invasive breast cancers, while absolute risk reductions per 10 000 person-years were 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures The absolute excess risk of events included in the global index was 19 per 10 000 person-years Conclusions Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 52-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women All-cause mortality was not affected during the trial The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD

Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses

Abstract: The quality assessment of non-randomized studies is an important component of a thorough meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Low quality studies can lead to a distortion of the summary effect estimate. Recent guidelines for the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies recommend the assessment of the study quality (MOOSE) [1]. In principal, three categories of quality assessments tools are available: scales, simple checklists, or checklists with a summary judgment (for details see Sanderson et al. 2007 [2]). The results of the quality assessment can be used in several ways such as forming inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, informing a sensitivity analysis or metaregression, weighting studies, or highlighting areas of methodological quality poorly addressed by the included studies [3]. It has been criticized that the use of summary scores involve inherent weighting of component items including items that may not be related to the validity of the study findings [2]. Sanderson et al. [2] recently identified overall 86 tools for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies. Their review "highlighted the lack of a single obvious candidate tool for assessing quality of observational epidemiological studies" [2]. In the field of randomized trials, it has been shown that the choice of quality scale can dramatically influence the interpretation of meta-analyses, and can even reverse conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention [4]. Wells et al. [5] proposed a scale for assessing the quality of published non-randomized studies in meta-analyses,