A hybrid method in combining treatment effects from matched and unmatched studies

In the biomedical studies, the general data structures have been the matched (paired) and unmatched designs. Recently, many researchers are interested in Meta-Analysis to obtain a better understanding from several clinical data of a medical treatment. The hybrid design, which is combined two data structures, may create the fundamental question for statistical methods and the challenges for statistical inferences. The applied methods are depending on the underlying distribution. If the outcomes are normally distributed, we would use the classic paired and two independent sample T-tests on the matched and unmatched cases. If not, we can apply Wilcoxon signed rank and rank sum test on each case. ^ To assess an overall treatment effect on a hybrid design, we can apply the inverse variance weight method used in Meta-Analysis. On the nonparametric case, we can use a test statistic which is combined on two Wilcoxon test statistics. However, these two test statistics are not in same scale. We propose the Hybrid Test Statistic based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of the treatment effects, which are medians in the same scale.^ To compare the proposed method, we use the classic meta-analysis T-test statistic on the combined the estimates of the treatment effects from two T-test statistics. Theoretically, the efficiency of two unbiased estimators of a parameter is the ratio of their variances. With the concept of Asymptotic Relative Efficiency (ARE) developed by Pitman, we show ARE of the hybrid test statistic relative to classic meta-analysis T-test statistic using the Hodges-Lemann estimators associated with two test statistics.^ From several simulation studies, we calculate the empirical type I error rate and power of the test statistics. The proposed statistic would provide effective tool to evaluate and understand the treatment effect in various public health studies as well as clinical trials.^

Cryo-electron tomography of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus capsids reveals dynamic scaffolding structures essential to capsid assembly and maturation.

Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) is a recently discovered DNA tumor virus that belongs to the gamma-herpesvirus subfamily. Though numerous studies on KSHV and other herpesviruses, in general, have revealed much about their multilayered organization and capsid structure, the herpesvirus capsid assembly and maturation pathway remains poorly understood. Structural variability or irregularity of the capsid internal scaffolding core and the lack of adequate tools to study such structures have presented major hurdles to earlier investigations employing more traditional cryo-electron microscopy (cryoEM) single particle reconstruction. In this study, we used cryo-electron tomography (cryoET) to obtain 3D reconstructions of individual KSHV capsids, allowing direct visualization of the capsid internal structures and systematic comparison of the scaffolding cores for the first time. We show that B-capsids are not a structurally homogenous group; rather, they represent an ensemble of "B-capsid-like" particles whose inner scaffolding is highly variable, possibly representing different intermediates existing during the KSHV capsid assembly and maturation. This information, taken together with previous observations, has allowed us to propose a detailed pathway of herpesvirus capsid assembly and maturation.

COMPARISON OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INVESTOR-OWNED AND VOLUNTARY MULTIHOSPITAL SECTORS

Objectives. The central objective of this study was to systematically examine the internal structure of multihospital systems, determining the management principles used and the performance levels achieved in medical care and administrative areas.^ The Universe. The study universe consisted of short-term general American hospitals owned and operated by multihospital corporations. Corporations compared were the investor-owned (for-profit) and the voluntary multihospital systems. The individual hospital was the unit of analysis for the study.^ Theoretical Considerations. The contingency theory, using selected aspects of the classical and human relations schools of thought, seemed well suited to describe multihospital organization and was used in this research.^ The Study Hypotheses. The main null hypotheses generated were that there are no significant differences between the voluntary and the investor-owned multihospital sectors in their (1) hospital structures and (2) patient care and administrative performance levels.^ The Sample. A stratified random sample of 212 hospitals owned by multihospital systems was selected to equally represent the two study sectors. Of the sampled hospitals approached, 90.1% responded.^ The Analysis. Sixteen scales were constructed in conjunction with 16 structural variables developed from the major questions and sub-items of the questionnaire. This was followed by analysis of an additional 7 structural and 24 effectiveness (performance) measures, using frequency distributions. Finally, summary statistics and statistical testing for each variable and sub-items were completed and recorded in 38 tables.^ Study Findings. While it has been argued that there are great differences between the two sectors, this study found that with a few exceptions the null hypotheses of no difference in organizational and operational characteristics of non-profit and for-profit hospitals was accepted. However, there were several significant differences found in the structural variables: functional specialization, and autonomy were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. Only centralization was significantly different in the investor owned. Among the effectiveness measures, occupancy rate, cost of data processing, total manhours worked, F.T.E. ratios, and personnel per occupied bed were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. The findings indicated that both voluntary and for-profit systems were converging toward a common hierarchical corporate management approach. Factors of size and management style may be better descriptors to characterize a specific multihospital group than its profit or nonprofit status. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^