Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Prise de poids et contraceptifs à progestatifs seuls: plus d'inquiétude que de preuves scientifiques. [Weight gain and progestin-only contraceptives: more concern than evidence].

Weight gain is a side effect often associated with progestin-only contraceptives. A recently published Cochrane review focuses on this issue that has been addressed in only few studies of good quality. Here we discuss the results of this review in the context of three clinical cases. With progestin-only contraceptives the weight gain is less than often thought, especially after six or twelve months of treatment. Some results are rather reassuring, especially those in obese women and during the post-partum period. This should help improve the compliance of women who fear gaining weight with this type of hormonal contraception.

Toisenlainen muusikkoelämäkerta

Luettua

Circulating sex steroids during pregnancy and maternal risk of non-epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sex steroid hormones have been proposed to play a role in the development of non-epithelial ovarian cancers (NEOC) but so far no direct epidemiological data are available.METHODS: A case-control study was nested within the Finnish Maternity Cohort, the world's largest bio-repository of serum specimens from pregnant women. Study subjects were selected among women who donated a blood sample during a singleton pregnancy that led to the birth of their last child preceding diagnosis of NEOC. Case subjects were 41 women with sex-cord stromal tumors (SCST) and 21 with germ cell tumors (GCT). Three controls, matching the index case for age, parity at the index pregnancy, and date at blood donation were selected (n=171). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with concentrations of testosterone, androstenedione, 17-OH-progesterone, progesterone, estradiol and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) were estimated through conditional logistic regression.RESULTS: For SCST, doubling of testosterone, androstenedione and 17-OH-progesterone concentrations were associated with about 2-fold higher risk of SCST [ORs and 95% CI of 2.16 (1.25-3.74), 2.16 (1.20-3.87), and 2.62 (1.27-5.38), respectively]. These associations remained largely unchanged after excluding women within 2, 4 or 6 years lag-time between blood donation and cancer diagnosis. Sex steroid hormones concentrations were not related to maternal risk of GCT.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study providing initial evidence that elevated androgens play a role in the pathogenesis of SCST. Impact: Our study may note a particular need for larger confirmatory investigations on sex steroids and NEOC.