University of East Anglia

About: University of East Anglia is a education organization based out in Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Climate change. The organization has 13250 authors who have published 37504 publications receiving 1669060 citations. The organization is also known as: UEA.

Anxiety and depression in adults with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are thought to be at disproportionate risk of developing mental health comorbidities, with anxiety and depression being considered most prominent amongst these Yet, no systematic review has been carried out to date to examine rates of both anxiety and depression focusing specifically on adults with ASD This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the rates of anxiety and depression in adults with ASD and the impact of factors such as assessment methods and presence of comorbid intellectual disability (ID) diagnosis on estimated prevalence rates Electronic database searches for studies published between January 2000 and September 2017 identified a total of 35 studies, including 30 studies measuring anxiety (n = 26 070; mean age = 309, sd = 62 years) and 29 studies measuring depression (n = 26 117; mean age = 311, sd = 68 years) The pooled estimation of current and lifetime prevalence for adults with ASD were 27% and 42% for any anxiety disorder, and 23% and 37% for depressive disorder Further analyses revealed that the use of questionnaire measures and the presence of ID may significantly influence estimates of prevalence The current literature suffers from a high degree of heterogeneity in study method and an overreliance on clinical samples These results highlight the importance of community-based studies and the identification and inclusion of well-characterized samples to reduce heterogeneity and bias in estimates of prevalence for comorbidity in adults with ASD and other populations with complex psychiatric presentations

Estimates of Genetic Differentiation Measured by FST Do Not Necessarily Require Large Sample Sizes When Using Many SNP Markers

Abstract: Population genetic studies provide insights into the evolutionary processes that influence the distribution of sequence variants within and among wild populations. FST is among the most widely used measures for genetic differentiation and plays a central role in ecological and evolutionary genetic studies. It is commonly thought that large sample sizes are required in order to precisely infer FST and that small sample sizes lead to overestimation of genetic differentiation. Until recently, studies in ecological model organisms incorporated a limited number of genetic markers, but since the emergence of next generation sequencing, the panel size of genetic markers available even in non-reference organisms has rapidly increased. In this study we examine whether a large number of genetic markers can substitute for small sample sizes when estimating FST. We tested the behavior of three different estimators that infer FST and that are commonly used in population genetic studies. By simulating populations, we assessed the effects of sample size and the number of markers on the various estimates of genetic differentiation. Furthermore, we tested the effect of ascertainment bias on these estimates. We show that the population sample size can be significantly reduced (as small as n = 4–6) when using an appropriate estimator and a large number of bi-allelic genetic markers (k>1,000). Therefore, conservation genetic studies can now obtain almost the same statistical power as studies performed on model organisms using markers developed with next-generation sequencing.

Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews

Abstract: Objective To investigate basic assumptions and other methodological problems in the application of indirect comparison in systematic reviews of competing healthcare interventions. Design Survey of published systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2007 in which an indirect approach had been explicitly used. Identified reviews were assessed for comprehensiveness of the literature search, method for indirect comparison, and whether assumptions about similarity and consistency were explicitly mentioned. Results The survey included 88 review reports. In 13 reviews, indirect comparison was informal. Results from different trials were naively compared without using a common control in six reviews. Adjusted indirect comparison was usually done using classic frequentist methods (n=49) or more complex methods (n=18). The key assumption of trial similarity was explicitly mentioned in only 40 of the 88 reviews. The consistency assumption was not explicit in most cases where direct and indirect evidence were compared or combined (18/30). Evidence from head to head comparison trials was not systematically searched for or not included in nine cases. Conclusions Identified methodological problems were an unclear understanding of underlying assumptions, inappropriate search and selection of relevant trials, use of inappropriate or flawed methods, lack of objective and validated methods to assess or improve trial similarity, and inadequate comparison or inappropriate combination of direct and indirect evidence. Adequate understanding of basic assumptions underlying indirect and mixed treatment comparison is crucial to resolve these methodological problems.