| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Kou, I, et al.
(författare)
-
A multi-ethnic meta-analysis confirms the association of rs6570507 with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Scientific reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 8:1, s. 11575-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of spinal deformity and has a significant genetic background. Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) identified several susceptibility loci associated with AIS. Among them is a locus on chromosome 6q24.1 that we identified by a GWAS in a Japanese cohort. The locus is represented by rs6570507 located within GPR126. To ensure the association of rs6570507 with AIS, we conducted a meta-analysis using eight cohorts from East Asia, Northern Europe and USA. The analysis included a total of 6,873 cases and 38,916 controls and yielded significant association (combined P = 2.95 × 10−20; odds ratio = 1.22), providing convincing evidence of the worldwide association between rs6570507 and AIS susceptibility. In silico analyses strongly suggested that GPR126 is a susceptibility gene at this locus.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Ogura, Y, et al.
(författare)
-
An international meta-analysis confirms the association of BNC2 with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Scientific reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 8:1, s. 4730-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common spinal deformity with the prevalence of approximately 3%. We previously conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) using a Japanese cohort and identified a novel locus on chromosome 9p22.2. However, a replication study using multi-population cohorts has not been conducted. To confirm the association of 9p22.2 locus with AIS in multi-ethnic populations, we conducted international meta-analysis using eight cohorts. In total, we analyzed 8,756 cases and 27,822 controls. The analysis showed a convincing evidence of association between rs3904778 and AIS. Seven out of eight cohorts had significant P value, and remaining one cohort also had the same trend as the seven. The combined P was 3.28 × 10−18 (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.14–1.24). In silico analyses suggested that BNC2 is the AIS susceptibility gene in this locus.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
|
|
