2,497 publications from this institution
In a cohort of 204 unselected consecutive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV1)‐infected patients, the association of circulating autoantibodies to endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) with HIV-1‐related anemia was studied. Circulating autoantibodies to EPO were present in 48 (23.5%) of the 204 patients studied. Circulating autoantibodies were an independent predictor of anemia (odds ratio ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5‐9.9), as [OR] = 5.0 strong as other known causes of anemia. The association of anti-EPO antibodies with anemia became stronger when the analysis was limited to the group of patients without any medical condition causing anemia ( ; 95% CI, 3.2‐33.9). Moreover, the effect on hemoglobin OR = 10.4 levels remained significant even after adjusting for other anemia parameters. Anti-EPO autoantibodies were associated with higher EPO levels ( , ) and with a more prom
We investigate two critical dimensions of the credibility of empirical economics research: statistical power and bias. We survey 159 empirical economics literatures that draw upon 64,076 estimates of economic parameters reported in more than 6,700 empirical studies. Half of the research areas have nearly 90% of their results under‐powered. The median statistical power is 18%, or less. A simple weighted average of those reported results that are adequately powered (power ≥ 80%) reveals that nearly 80% of the reported effects in these empirical economics literatures are exaggerated; typically, by a factor of two and with one‐third inflated by a factor of four or more.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Abstract Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy‐Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis. Genet. Epidemiol . 33:581–598, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has several shortcomings that are likely contributing factors behind the widely debated replication crisis of (cognitive) neuroscience, psychology, and biomedical science in general. We review these shortcomings and suggest that, after sustained negative experience, NHST should no longer be the default, dominant statistical practice of all biomedical and psychological research. If theoretical predictions are weak we should not rely on all or nothing hypothesis tests. Different inferential methods may be most suitable for different types of research questions. Whenever researchers use NHST they should justify its use, and publish pre-study power calculations and effect sizes, including negative findings. Hypothesis-testing studies should be pre-registered and optimally raw data published. The current statistics lite educational approach for students that has sustained the widespread, spurious use of NHST should be phased out.
The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.