Dataset Information

An Evaluation of Regional Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer Research Needs Using Conference Abstracts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite cardiovascular diseases and cancer being the leading causes of premature mortality in the Caribbean region, there is limited local research available to guide a comprehensive response to this epidemic.

Objective

To evaluate cardiovascular disease and cancer research in the Caribbean using abstracts presented at the Caribbean Public Health Agency's (CARPHA) meeting - the longest running annual research conference in the region.

Method

Study data (population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome) were extracted from abstracts published for the 2006 to 2018 meetings. Additionally, institutional affiliation and geographic location of the first author, countries involved, sample size, study design and use of specialized testing/biomarkers were also extracted. Data were analysed using STATA version 14.

Findings

A total of 1,512 abstracts, 728 posters and 784 oral presentations were reviewed. Research on cancer and cardiovascular disease comprised approximately 15% of all abstracts published annually over the review period. Most of the cardiovascular disease studies had cross sectional or survey designs (46%), with very few laboratory-based studies (<2%) and no intervention studies/clinical trials. For cancer research, 30% were cross-sectional studies/audits, 11% were case control studies, 5% were lab based and there were no clinical trials. Almost a quarter of the cardiovascular disease / cancer abstracts over the period originated from Trinidad and Tobago (26%), with Jamaica and Barbados contributing 18% and 15% respectively.

Conclusion

These finding highlight the need for additional studies that can provide evidence for interventions and policy to address the region's high cardiovascular disease and cancer burden. A Regional Centre of Research Excellence could support capacity development to facilitate this process.

SUBMITTER: Williamson GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Current resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 Compression:Ventilation (C:V) ratio, however the most effective C:V ratio in newborns remains controversial. We recently demonstrate that if chest compressions (CC) are superimposed by sustained inflations (SI) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and mortality are improved in asphyxiated newborn piglets when compared to standard coordinated 3:1 resuscitation. However, this has not been studied in newborns. OBJECTIVES: To determine if CC superimposed with SI impacts ROSC in infants <33 weeks with bradycardia or asystole compared to coordinated 3:1 C:V resuscitation. DESIGN/METHODS: In a pilot study, infants born <33 weeks gestational age with an heart rate <60/min or asystole were randomized to receive either “3:1 C:V” or “SS+CC”. Infants randomized to 3:1 received coordinated CC and ventilation according to the current resuscitation guidelines. Infants randomized to “SI+CC” received uninterrupted CC at a rate of 90/min superimposed by a SI of 30 sec. The default settings for airway pressures were peak inflation pressure of 24 cm H2O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 6 cm H2O. The primary outcome was duration of CC to achieve ROSC. Deferral of consent was approved by the institutional ethics committee. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02083705. RESULTS: Five infants were randomized to each group; the mean (range) gestational age was 25 (24–27) weeks vs. 26 (23–28) weeks in the in the SI+CC and 3:1 group (P=0.433), respectively. Mean (SD) birth weight in the SI+CC group was 797 (208) g vs. 808 (182) g in the 3:1 group, (P=0.465) respectively. Mean (SD) ROSC was significantly decreased in the SI+CC group with 31 (8) sec vs. 138 (72) sec in the 3:1 group (P=0.011). One infant in each group died and only one infant in the 3:1 group received epinephrine. One infant in the SI+CC group and three in the 3:1 had intracranial hemorrhage grade 3 or greater. Three infants in the SI+CC group had necrotizing enterocolitis vs. one infant in the 3:1 group (P=0.197). CONCLUSION: Preterm infants <33 weeks had significant shorter ROSC when CC were superimposed by SI compared to using 3:1.

Project description:BackgroundIncluding results from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review may ameliorate the effect of publication bias in systematic review results. Unpublished RCTs are sometimes described in abstracts presented at conferences, included in trials registers, or both. Trial results may not be available in a trials register and abstracts describing RCT results often lack study design information. Complementary information from a trials register record may be sufficient to allow reliable inclusion of an unpublished RCT only available as an abstract in a systematic review.MethodsWe identified 496 abstracts describing RCTs presented at the 2007 to 2009 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meetings; 154 RCTs were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Two persons extracted verbatim primary and non-primary outcomes reported in the abstract and ClinicalTrials.gov record. We compared each abstract outcome with all ClinicalTrials.gov outcomes and coded matches as complete, partial, or no match.ResultsWe identified 800 outcomes in 152 abstracts (95 primary [51 abstracts] and 705 [141 abstracts] non-primary outcomes). No outcomes were reported in 2 abstracts. Of 95 primary outcomes, 17 (18%) agreed completely, 53 (56%) partially, and 25 (26%) had no match with a ClinicalTrials.gov primary or non-primary outcome. Among 705 non-primary outcomes, 56 (8%) agreed completely, 205 (29%) agreed partially, and 444 (63%) had no match with a ClinicalTrials.gov primary or non-primary outcome. Among the 258 outcomes partially agreeing, we found additional information on the time when the outcome was measured more often in ClinicalTrials.gov than in the abstract (141/258 (55%) versus 55/258 (21%)). We found no association between the presence of non-matching "new" outcomes and year of registration, time to registry update, industry sponsorship, or multi-center status.ConclusionConference abstracts may be a valuable source of information about results for outcomes of unpublished RCTs that have been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Complementary additional descriptive information may be present for outcomes reported in both sources. However, ARVO abstract authors also present outcomes not reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and these may represent analyses not originally planned.