When one depends on the other: reporting of interaction in case-control and cohort studies

BACKGROUND: Interaction refers to the situation in which the effect of 1 exposure on an outcome differs across strata of another exposure. We did a survey of epidemiologic studies published in leading journals to examine how interaction is assessed and reported. METHODS: We selected 150 case-control and 75 cohort studies published between May 2001 and May 2007 in leading general medicine, epidemiology, and clinical specialist journals. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 225 studies, 138 (61%) addressed interaction. Among these, 25 (18%) presented no data or only a P value or a statement of statistical significance; 40 (29%) presented stratum-specific effect estimates but no meaningful comparison of these estimates; and 58 (42%) presented stratum-specific estimates and appropriate tests for interaction. Fifteen articles (11%) presented the individual effects of both exposures and also their joint effect or a product term, providing sufficient information to interpret interaction on an additive and multiplicative scale. Reporting was poorest in articles published in clinical specialist articles and most adequate in articles published in general medicine journals, with epidemiology journals in an intermediate position. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of articles reporting cohort and case-control studies address possible interactions between exposures. However, in about half of these, the information provided was unsatisfactory, and only 1 in 10 studies reported data that allowed readers to interpret interaction effects on an additive and multiplicative scale.

Cartilage damage in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): preliminary results on comparison of standard diagnostic vs delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC)

OBJECTIVES: To study the three-dimensional (3D) T1 patterns in different types of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by utilizing delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and subsequent 3D T1 mapping. We used standard grading of OA by Tonnis grade on standard radiographs and morphological grading of cartilage in MRI for comparative analysis. METHODS: dGEMRIC was obtained from ten asymptomatic young-adult volunteers and 26 symptomatic FAI patients. MRI included the routine hip protocol and a dual-flip angle (FA) 3D gradient echo (GRE) sequence utilizing inline T1 measurement. Cartilage was morphologically classified from the radial images based on the extent of degeneration as: no degeneration, degeneration zone measuring <0.75 cm from the rim, >0.75 cm, or total loss. T1 findings were evaluated and correlated. RESULTS: All FAI types revealed remarkably lower T1 mean values in comparison to asymptomatic volunteers in all regions of interest. Distribution of the T1 dGEMRIC values was in accordance with the specific FAI damage pattern. In cam-types (n=6) there was a significant drop (P<0.05) of T1 in the anterior to superior location. In pincer-types (n=7), there was a generalized circumferential decrease noted. High inter-observer (intra-observer) reliability was noted for T1 assessment using intra-class correlation (ICC):intra-class coefficient=0.89 (0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a pattern of zonal T1 variation does seem to exist that is unique for different sub-groups of FAI. The FA GRE approach to perform 3D T1 mapping has a promising role for further studies of standard MRI and dGEMRIC in the hip joint.

Delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (dGEMRIC) of hip joint cartilage in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): Are pre- and postcontrast imaging both necessary?

The purpose of this study was to assess if delayed gadolinium MRI of cartilage using postcontrast T(1) (T(1Gd)) is sufficient for evaluating cartilage damage in femoroacetabular impingement without using noncontrast values (T(10)). T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1) (1/T(1Gd) - 1/T(10)) that include noncontrast T(1) measurements were studied in two grades of osteoarthritis and in a control group of asymptomatic young-adult volunteers. Differences between T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1) values for femoroacetabular impingement patients and volunteers were compared. There was a very high correlation between T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1) in all study groups. In the study cohort with Tonnis grade 0, correlation (r) was -0.95 and -0.89 with Tonnis grade 1 and -0.88 in asymptomatic volunteers, being statistically significant (P < 0.001) for all groups. For both T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1), a statistically significant difference was noted between patients and control group. Significant difference was also noted for both T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1) between the patients with Tonnis grade 0 osteoarthritis and those with grade 1 changes. Our results prove a linear correlation between T(1Gd) and DeltaR(1), suggesting that T(1Gd) assessment is sufficient for the clinical utility of delayed gadolinium MRI of cartilage in this setting and additional time-consuming T(10) evaluation may not be needed.

Delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC): Molekulare MRT-Bildgebung des Hüftgelenkknorpels [Delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC): molecular MRI of hip joint cartilage]

Factors such as instability and impingement lead to early cartilage damage and osteoarthritis of the hip joint. The surgical outcome of joint-preserving surgery about the hip joint depends on the preoperative quality of joint cartilage.For in vivo evaluation of cartilage quality, different biochemically sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures have been tested, some of which have the potential of inducing a paradigm shift in the evaluation and treatment of cartilage damage and early osteoarthritis.Instead of reacting to late sequelae in a palliative way, physicians could assess cartilage damage early on, and the treatment intensity could be adequate and based on the disease stage. Furthermore, the efficiency of different therapeutic interventions could be evaluated and monitored.This article reviews the recent application of delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and discusses its use for assessing cartilage quality in the hip joint. dGEMRIC is more sensitive to early cartilage changes in osteoarthritis than are radiographic measures and might be a helpful tool for assessing cartilage quality.

Assessment of osteoarthritis in hips with femoroacetabular impingement using delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of assessing early osteoarthritis (OA) in hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) using delayed Gadolinium enhanced MRI of Cartilage (dGEMRIC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven hips in 30 patients who had a dGEMRIC scan and radiographic evidence of FAI were identified. Clinical symptoms were assessed. Radiographic measurements were performed to determine acetabular and femoral morphology. The severity of radiographic OA was determined using Tönnis grade and minimum joint space width (JSW). On MRI, the alpha angle was measured on the sagittal oblique slices. Correlations between dGEMRIC index, patient symptoms, morphologic measurements, radiographic OA, and age were determined. RESULTS: Significant correlations were observed between dGEMRIC index, pain (P < 0.05), and alpha angle (P < 0.05). The correlation of dGEMRIC with alpha angle suggests that hips with more femoral deformity show signs of early OA. CONCLUSION: The results of osteoplasty for FAI depend on the amount of pre-existing OA in the joint. dGEMRIC may be a useful technique for diagnosis and staging of early osteoarthritis in hips with impingement.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

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.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

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.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

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 (STREGA) studies 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, modeling 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.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

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.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

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 into 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, modeling 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 issues of data volume 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.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

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, modeling 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.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

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, modeling 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.

Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: early or delayed repair-results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma prospective study

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injuries (TAI) is immediate repair, with delayed repair reserved for patients with major associated injuries. In recent years, there has been a trend toward delayed repair, even in low-risk patients. This study evaluates the current practices in the surgical community regarding the timing of aortic repair and its effects on outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational multicenter study sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The study included patients with blunt TAI scheduled for aortic repair by open or endovascular procedure. Patients in extremis and those managed without aortic repair were excluded. The data collection included demographics, initial clinical presentation, Injury Severity Scores, type and site of aortic injury, type of aortic repair (open or endovascular repair), and time from injury to aortic repair. The study patients were divided into an early repair (< or = 24 hours) and delayed repair groups (> 24 hours). The outcome variables included survival, ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, blood transfusions, and complications. The outcomes in the two groups were compared with multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, major associated injuries, and type of aortic repair. A second multivariate analysis compared outcomes between early and delayed repair, in patients with and patients without major associated injuries. RESULTS: There were 178 patients with TAI eligible for inclusion and analysis, 109 (61.2%) of which underwent early repair and 69 (38.8%) delayed repair. The two groups had similar epidemiologic, injury severity, and type of repair characteristics. The adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the early repair group (adjusted OR [95% CI] 7.78 [1.69-35.70], adjusted p value = 0.008). The adjusted complication rate was similar in the two groups. However, delayed repair was associated with significantly longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Analysis of the 108 patients without major associated injuries, adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, and type of aortic repair, showed that in early repair there was a trend toward higher mortality rate (adjusted OR 9.08 [0.88-93.78], adjusted p value = 0.064) but a significantly lower complication rate (adjusted OR 0.4 [0.18-0.96], adjusted p value 0.040) and shorter ICU stay (adjusted p value = 0.021) than the delayed repair group. A similar analysis of the 68 patients with major associated injuries, showed a strong trend toward higher mortality in the early repair group (adjusted OR 9.39 [0.93-95.18], adjusted p value = 0.058). The complication rate was similar in both groups (adjusted p value = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed repair of stable blunt TAI is associated with improved survival, irrespective of the presence or not of major associated injuries. However, delayed repair is associated with a longer length of ICU stay and in the group of patients with no major associated injuries a significantly higher complication rate.