METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until 31st December 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) in HF evaluating statins versus placebo. Identified RCTs and their respective abstracted information were grouped according to statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were initially pooled with the Peto's one-step method, producing odd ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin for each outcome.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 10,966 patients were identified and analyzed. Lipophilic statins were superior to hydrophilic rosuvastatin regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0 · 50; 95 % CI, 0 · 11-0 · 89; p = 0 · 01), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0 · 61; 0 · 25-0 · 97; p = 0 · 009), and hospitalization for worsening HF (OR 0 · 52; 0 · 21-0 · 83; p = 0 · 0005). However, both statins were comparable with regards to cardiovascular hospitalization [OR 0 · 80 (0 · 31, 1 · 28); p = 0 · 36].
CONCLUSIONS: Lipophilic statin treatment shows significant decreases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for worsening HF compared with rosuvastatin treatment. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that lipophilic statins offer better clinical outcomes in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.
METHODS: Data from World Health Survey conducted in 2002-2004 in low-middle- and high-income countries were used. Participants aged 18 years and over were selected using multistage, stratified cluster sampling. BMI was used as an outcome variable. Culture of the countries was measured using Hofstede's cultural dimensions: Uncertainty avoidance, individualism, Power Distance and masculinity. The potential determinants of individual-level BMI were participants' sex, age, marital status, education, occupation as well as household-wealth and location (rural/urban) at the individual-level. The country-level factors used were average national income (GNI-PPP), income inequality (Gini-index) and Hofstede's cultural dimensions. A two-level random-intercepts and fixed-slopes model structure with individuals nested within countries were fitted, treating BMI as a continuous outcome variable.
RESULTS: A sample of 156,192 people from 53 countries was included in this analysis. The design-based (weighted) mean BMI (SE) in these 53 countries was 23.95(0.08). Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and individualism (IDV) were significantly associated with BMI, showing that people in more individualistic or high uncertainty avoidance countries had higher BMI than collectivist or low uncertainty avoidance ones. This model explained that one unit increase in UAI or IDV was associated with 0.03 unit increase in BMI. Power distance and masculinity were not associated with BMI of the people. National level Income was also significantly associated with individual-level BMI.
CONCLUSION: National culture has a substantial association with BMI of the individuals in the country. This association is important for understanding the pattern of obesity or overweight across different cultures and countries. It is also important to recognise the importance of the association of culture and BMI in developing public health interventions to reduce obesity or overweight.
METHOD: We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, CINAHL Database, and the Cochrane Library using a predefined search strategy. Other sources of literature will include proceedings from the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the EUROPCR, and the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. We will include data from observational studies (case-control and cohort study design) and randomized control trials (that have investigated the relationship of D2B time and clinical outcome(s) in an adult (older than 18) STEMI population). Mortality (cardiac related and all-cause) and incidence heart failure (HF) have been prioritized as the primary outcomes. All eligible studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to report the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. We will proceed to analyze the data quantitatively if the pre-specified conditions are satisfied.
DISCUSSION: Recent discussion on the negative findings of improved D2B delay over time being unrelated to better STEMI outcomes at the population level has reminded us of an important knowledge gap we have on this domain. This systematic review will serve to address some of these key questions not previously examined. Answers to these questions could clarify the controversies and offer empirical support for or against the suggested hypotheses.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015026069.
METHODS: PubMed case reports data from 2011 to 2016 were extracted for the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The gender of the patients were identified and a text analysis of the Medical Subject Headings conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 2,742 case reports were downloaded and 2,582 (95.6%) reports contributed to the final analysis. A pooled analysis showed a statistically significant gender bias against female case reports (0.45; 95%CI: 0.43-0.47). The Annals of Internal Medicine was the only journal with a point estimate (non significant) in the direction of a bias against male patients. The text analysis identified no substantive difference in the focus of the case reports and no obvious explanation for the bias.
CONCLUSION: Gender bias, previously identified in clinical research and in clinical authorship, extends into the patients presented in clinical case reports. Whether it is driven by authors or editors is not clear, but it likely contributes to and supports an overall male bias of clinical medicine.
METHODS: A bibliographic analysis was conducted of neglected tropical diseases related research papers published over the past 10 years in biomedical and social sciences. The analysis had textual and bibliometric facets, and focussed on chikungunya, dengue, visceral leishmaniasis, and onchocerciasis.
RESULTS: There is substantial variation in the number of publications associated with each disease. The proportion of the research that is social science based appears remarkably consistent (<4%). A textual analysis, however, reveals a degree of misclassification by the abstracting service where a surprising proportion of the "social sciences" research was pure clinical research. Much of the social sciences research also tends to be "hand maiden" research focused on the implementation of biomedical solutions.
CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that scientists pay any attention to the complex social, cultural, biological, and environmental dynamic involved in human pathogenesis. There is little investigator driven social science and a poor presence of interdisciplinary science. The research needs more sophisticated funders and priority setters who are not beguiled by uncritical biomedical promises.