| 1. |
- Sobowale, Oluwaseun A., et al.
(författare)
-
Baseline perihematomal edema, C-reactive protein, and 30-day mortality are not associated in intracerebral hemorrhage
- 2024
-
Ingår i: FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY. - 1664-2295. ; 15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The relationship between baseline perihematomal edema (PHE) and inflammation, and their impact on survival after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are not well understood.Objective Assess the association between baseline PHE, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and early death after ICH.Methods Analysis of pooled data from multicenter ICH registries. We included patients presenting within 24 h of symptom onset, using multifactorial linear regression model to assess the association between CRP and edema extension distance (EED), and a multifactorial Cox regression model to assess the association between CRP, PHE volume and 30-day mortality.Results We included 1,034 patients. Median age was 69 (interquartile range [IQR] 59-79), median baseline ICH volume 11.5 (IQR 4.3-28.9) mL, and median baseline CRP 2.5 (IQR 1.5-7.0) mg/L. In the multifactorial analysis [adjusting for cohort, age, sex, log-ICH volume, ICH location, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), statin use, glucose, and systolic blood pressure], baseline log-CRP was not associated with baseline EED: for a 50% increase in CRP the difference in expected mean EED was 0.004 cm (95%CI 0.000-0.008, p = 0.055). In a further multifactorial analysis, after adjusting for key predictors of mortality, neither a 50% increase in PHE volume nor CRP were associated with higher 30-day mortality (HR 0.97; 95%CI 0.90-1.05, p = 0.51 and HR 0.98; 95%CI 0.93-1.03, p = 0.41, respectively).Conclusion Higher baseline CRP is not associated with higher baseline edema, which is also not associated with mortality. Edema at baseline might be driven by different pathophysiological processes with different effects on outcome.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wilkinson, Jack, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 14:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.Methods and analysis The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.Ethics and dissemination The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.
|
|
