IQ Assessment in Craniofacial Neurocognitive Studies: Interpreting Results Relative to Evidence-based Systematic Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Long AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9298474 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
IQ Assessment in Craniofacial Neurocognitive Studies: Interpreting Results Relative to Evidence-based Systematic Analysis.
Long Aaron S AS Hauc Sacha C SC Junn Adam H AH Meyer Caitlin C Mayes Linda L Persing John A JA Alperovich Michael M
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20220720 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAppropriate medication prescribing may be influenced by a prescriber's ability to understand and interpret medical research. The objective of this review was to synthesize the research related to prescribers' critical appraisal knowledge and skills-defined as the understanding of statistical methods, biases in studies, and relevance and validity of evidence.MethodsWe searched PubMed and other databases from January 1990 through September 2015. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies of any design conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Canada that involved prescribers and that objectively measured critical appraisal knowledge, skills, understanding, attitudes, or prescribing behaviors. Data were narratively synthesized.ResultsWe screened 1204 abstracts, 72 full-text articles, and included 29 studies. Study populations included physicians. Physicians' extant knowledge and skills were in the low to middle of the possible score ranges and demonstrated modest increases in response to interventions. Physicians with formal education in epidemiology, biostatistics, and research demonstrated higher levels of knowledge and skills. In hypothetical scenarios presenting equivalent effect sizes, the use of relative effect measures was associated with greater perceptions of medication effectiveness and intent to prescribe, compared with the use of absolute effect measures. The evidence was limited by convenience samples and study designs that limit internal validity.DiscussionCritical appraisal knowledge and skills are limited among physicians. The effect measure used can influence perceptions of treatment effectiveness and intent to prescribe. How critical appraisal knowledge and skills fit among the myriad of influences on prescribing behavior is not known.
| S-EPMC8218608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To obtain insights into similarities and differences in the biological actions of related drugs or toxic agents, their transcriptomal signature profiles (TSPs) have been examined in a large number of studies. However, many such reports did not provide proper justification for the dosage criteria of each agent. Using a well characterized cell culture model of estrogen-dependent proliferation of MCF7 human breast cancer cells, we demonstrate how different approaches to dosage standardization exert critical influences on TSPs, leading to different and even conflicting conclusions. Using quantitative cellular response (QCR)-based dosage criteria, TSPs were determined by Affymetrix microarray when cells were proliferating at comparable rates in the presence of various estrogens. We observed that TSPs of the xenoestrogens (e.g., genistein or bisphenol A) were clearly different from the TSP of 17beta-estradiol; namely, the former strongly enhanced expression of genes involved in mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, whereas the latter showed minimal effects. In contrast, TSPs for genistein and 17beta-estradiol were indistinguishable by using the marker gene expression-based dosage criteria, conditions in which there was comparable expression of the mRNA transcripts for the estrogen-inducible WISP2 gene. Our findings indicate that determination and interpretation of TSPs in pharmacogenomic and toxicogenomic studies that examine the transcriptomal actions of related agents by microarray require a clear rationale for the dosage standardization method to be used. We suggest that future studies involving TSP analyses use quantitative and objective dosage standardization methods, such as those with quantitative cellular response or marker gene expression-based dosage criteria.
| S-EPMC1525050 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1126943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlong with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.MethodsIn order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsAmong case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively).ConclusionThe epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.
| S-EPMC4864356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results.Data sourcesCochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals.Study selection965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002.Data synthesisThe methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely.ConclusionsCochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.
| S-EPMC557223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSo far, several techniques have been recommended for the assessment of craniofacial changes through skeletal tissue superimposition, but the evidence that supports them remains unexplored. The purpose of the present study is to assess the available literature on skeletal-tissue superimpositions of serial craniofacial CT or CBCT images used to detect morphological changes.Materials and methodsMedline (via Pubmed), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Grey Literature Report were searched (last search: 17.11.2019) using specific terms that fulfilled the requirements of each database in the context of the study aim. Hand searches were also performed. The outcomes of interest were the accuracy, precision, or agreement between skeletal-tissue superimposition techniques to assess changes in the morphology of craniofacial structures. Studies of any design with sample size ≥3 were assessed by two authors independently. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019143356).ResultsOut of 832 studies, fifteen met the eligibility criteria. From the 15 included studies, 12 have shown high total risk of bias, one low risk of bias, and two studies have shown unclear risk of bias. Thirteen out of the 15 studies showed high applicability concerns, two unclear and no study had low applicability concerns. There was high heterogeneity among studies regarding the type of participants, sample size, growth status, machines, acquisition parameters, superimposition techniques, assessment techniques and outcomes measured. Fourteen of them were performed on Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and one on Computed Tomography (CT) derived 3D models. Most of the studies (eleven) used voxel-based registration, one landmark-based registration and three studies compared different registration techniques, which include the surface-based registration. Concerning the area of interest, nine studies focused on the anterior cranial base and certain facial structures, four on maxillary structures and four on mandibular structures. Non-growing participants were included in six studies, growing in eight, whereas one study had both.ConclusionMost of the available studies had methodological shortcomings and high applicability concerns. At the moment, certain voxel-based and surface-based superimpositions seem to work properly and to be superior to landmark-based superimposition. However, further research in the field is required to develop and properly validate these techniques on different samples, through high quality studies with low applicability concerns.
| S-EPMC7278889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Craniofacial anthropometry is an objective technique based on a series of measurements and proportions, which facilitate the characterization of phenotypic variation and quantification of dysmorphology. With the introduction of stereophotography, it is possible to acquire a lifelike three-dimensional (3D) image of the face with natural color and texture. Most of the traditional anthropometric landmarks can be identified on these 3D photographs using specialized software. Therefore, it has become possible to compute new digital measurements, which were not feasible with traditional instruments. The term "digital anthropometry" has been used by researchers based on such systems to separate their methods from conventional manual measurements. Anthropometry has been traditionally used as a research tool. With the advent of digital anthropometry, this technique can be employed in several disciplines as a noninvasive tool for quantifying facial morphology. The aim of this review is to provide a broad overview of digital anthropometry and discuss its clinical applications.
| S-EPMC4078131 | biostudies-other
Project description:Meta-analysis is an increasingly popular tool for combining multiple genome-wide association studies in a single analysis to identify associations with small effect sizes. The effect sizes between studies in a meta-analysis may differ and these differences, or heterogeneity, can be caused by many factors. If heterogeneity is observed in the results of a meta-analysis, interpreting the cause of heterogeneity is important because the correct interpretation can lead to a better understanding of the disease and a more effective design of a replication study. However, interpreting heterogeneous results is difficult. The standard approach of examining the association p-values of the studies does not effectively predict if the effect exists in each study. In this paper, we propose a framework facilitating the interpretation of the results of a meta-analysis. Our framework is based on a new statistic representing the posterior probability that the effect exists in each study, which is estimated utilizing cross-study information. Simulations and application to the real data show that our framework can effectively segregate the studies predicted to have an effect, the studies predicted to not have an effect, and the ambiguous studies that are underpowered. In addition to helping interpretation, the new framework also allows us to develop a new association testing procedure taking into account the existence of effect.
| S-EPMC3291559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has been suggested that differential neural activity in imaging studies is most informative if it is independent of response time (RT) differences. However, others view RT as a behavioural index of key cognitive processes, which is likely linked to underlying neural activity. Here, we reconcile these views using the effort and engagement framework developed by Taylor, Rastle, and Davis (2013) and data from the domain of reading aloud. We propose that differences in neural engagement should be independent of RT, whereas, differences in neural effort should co-vary with RT. We illustrate these different mechanisms using data from an fMRI study of neural activity during reading aloud of regular words, irregular words, and pseudowords. In line with our proposals, activation revealed by contrasts designed to tap differences in neural engagement (e.g., words are meaningful and therefore engage semantic representations more than pseudowords) survived correction for RT, whereas activation for contrasts designed to tap differences in neural effort (e.g., it is more difficult to generate the pronunciation of pseudowords than words) correlated with RT. However, even for contrasts designed to tap neural effort, activity remained after factoring out the RT-BOLD response correlation. This may reveal unpredicted differences in neural engagement (e.g., learning phonological forms for pseudowords>words) that could further the development of cognitive models of reading aloud. Our framework provides a theoretically well-grounded and easily implemented method for analysing and interpreting RT effects in neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes.
| S-EPMC4121088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide an understanding of the role of common genetic variations in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, we report an updated field synopsis and comprehensive assessment of evidence to catalogue all genetic markers for CRC (CRCgene2).DesignWe included 869 publications after parallel literature review and extracted data for 1063 polymorphisms in 303 different genes. Meta-analyses were performed for 308 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 158 different genes with at least three independent studies available for analysis. Scottish, Canadian and Spanish data from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) were incorporated for the meta-analyses of 132 SNPs. To assess and classify the credibility of the associations, we applied the Venice criteria and Bayesian False-Discovery Probability (BFDP). Genetic associations classified as 'positive' and 'less-credible positive' were further validated in three large GWAS consortia conducted in populations of European origin.ResultsWe initially identified 18 independent variants at 16 loci that were classified as 'positive' polymorphisms for their highly credible associations with CRC risk and 59 variants at 49 loci that were classified as 'less-credible positive' SNPs; 72.2% of the 'positive' SNPs were successfully replicated in three large GWASs and the ones that were not replicated were downgraded to 'less-credible' positive (reducing the 'positive' variants to 14 at 11 loci). For the remaining 231 variants, which were previously reported, our meta-analyses found no evidence to support their associations with CRC risk.ConclusionThe CRCgene2 database provides an updated list of genetic variants related to CRC risk by using harmonised methods to assess their credibility.
| S-EPMC7398467 | biostudies-literature