The Experts below are selected from a list of 39120 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Muhammad Mamdani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparison of propensity score methods a case study estimating the effectiveness of post ami statin use
Statistics in Medicine, 2006Co-Authors: Peter C Austin, Muhammad MamdaniAbstract:There is an increasing interest in the use of propensity score methods to estimate causal effects in observational studies. However, recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that propensity score methods are inconsistently used and frequently poorly applied in the medical literature. In this study, we compared the following propensity score methods for estimating the Reduction in all-cause mortality due to statin therapy for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: propensity-score matching, stratification using the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and weighting using the propensity score. We used propensity score methods to estimate both adjusted treated effects and the absolute and Relative Risk Reduction in all-cause mortality. We also examined the use of statistical hypothesis testing, standardized differences, box plots, non-parametric density estimates, and quantile-quantile plots to assess residual confounding that remained after stratification or matching on the propensity score. Estimates of the absolute Reduction in 3-year mortality ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 per cent, while estimates of the Relative Risk Reduction ranged from 13.3 to 17.0 per cent. Adjusted estimates of the Reduction in the odds of 3-year death varied from 15 to 24 per cent across the different propensity score methods.
-
a comparison of propensity score methods a case study estimating the effectiveness of post ami statin use
Statistics in Medicine, 2006Co-Authors: Peter C Austin, Muhammad MamdaniAbstract:There is an increasing interest in the use of propensity score methods to estimate causal effects in observational studies. However, recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that propensity score methods are inconsistently used and frequently poorly applied in the medical literature. In this study, we compared the following propensity score methods for estimating the Reduction in all-cause mortality due to statin therapy for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: propensity-score matching, stratification using the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and weighting using the propensity score. We used propensity score methods to estimate both adjusted treated effects and the absolute and Relative Risk Reduction in all-cause mortality. We also examined the use of statistical hypothesis testing, standardized differences, box plots, non-parametric density estimates, and quantile–quantile plots to assess residual confounding that remained after stratification or matching on the propensity score. Estimates of the absolute Reduction in 3-year mortality ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 per cent, while estimates of the Relative Risk Reduction ranged from 13.3 to 17.0 per cent. Adjusted estimates of the Reduction in the odds of 3-year death varied from 15 to 24 per cent across the different propensity score methods. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Peter C Austin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparison of propensity score methods a case study estimating the effectiveness of post ami statin use
Statistics in Medicine, 2006Co-Authors: Peter C Austin, Muhammad MamdaniAbstract:There is an increasing interest in the use of propensity score methods to estimate causal effects in observational studies. However, recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that propensity score methods are inconsistently used and frequently poorly applied in the medical literature. In this study, we compared the following propensity score methods for estimating the Reduction in all-cause mortality due to statin therapy for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: propensity-score matching, stratification using the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and weighting using the propensity score. We used propensity score methods to estimate both adjusted treated effects and the absolute and Relative Risk Reduction in all-cause mortality. We also examined the use of statistical hypothesis testing, standardized differences, box plots, non-parametric density estimates, and quantile-quantile plots to assess residual confounding that remained after stratification or matching on the propensity score. Estimates of the absolute Reduction in 3-year mortality ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 per cent, while estimates of the Relative Risk Reduction ranged from 13.3 to 17.0 per cent. Adjusted estimates of the Reduction in the odds of 3-year death varied from 15 to 24 per cent across the different propensity score methods.
-
a comparison of propensity score methods a case study estimating the effectiveness of post ami statin use
Statistics in Medicine, 2006Co-Authors: Peter C Austin, Muhammad MamdaniAbstract:There is an increasing interest in the use of propensity score methods to estimate causal effects in observational studies. However, recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that propensity score methods are inconsistently used and frequently poorly applied in the medical literature. In this study, we compared the following propensity score methods for estimating the Reduction in all-cause mortality due to statin therapy for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: propensity-score matching, stratification using the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and weighting using the propensity score. We used propensity score methods to estimate both adjusted treated effects and the absolute and Relative Risk Reduction in all-cause mortality. We also examined the use of statistical hypothesis testing, standardized differences, box plots, non-parametric density estimates, and quantile–quantile plots to assess residual confounding that remained after stratification or matching on the propensity score. Estimates of the absolute Reduction in 3-year mortality ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 per cent, while estimates of the Relative Risk Reduction ranged from 13.3 to 17.0 per cent. Adjusted estimates of the Reduction in the odds of 3-year death varied from 15 to 24 per cent across the different propensity score methods. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Darren K Mcguire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
interpreting absolute and Relative Risk Reduction in the context of recent cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with type 2 diabetes
Current Diabetes Reports, 2021Co-Authors: David D Berg, Ahmed A Kolkailah, Ashish Sarraju, Anne Marie Kerchberger, Mahmoud Eljalby, Darren K McguireAbstract:The cardiovascular benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have increased the focus of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) care on comprehensive cardiovascular Risk Reduction. Herein, we review the results of the cardiovascular outcomes trials of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, discuss the concepts of Relative vs. absolute Risk Reduction in the context of these trials, and highlight the importance of individualized Risk assessment when applying trial results to clinical practice. To enable personalized treatment approaches, multiple clinical Risk scores have been developed to assess Risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in patients with T2DM. In addition, circulating biomarkers of myocardial injury (cardiac troponin) and hemodynamic stress (natriuretic peptides) have been shown to further refine Risk prediction of these clinically important cardiovascular complications. When making decisions about whether to initiate SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, clinicians should consider the anticipated Relative and absolute treatment benefits from these antihyperglycemic therapies. Clinicians can use available clinical and biomarker-based Risk tools when counseling patients about their individual cardiovascular Risk profiles and when estimating absolute treatment benefits from SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA.
Patrick M Moriarty - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
using both Relative Risk Reduction and number needed to treat in evaluating primary and secondary clinical trials of lipid Reduction
American Journal of Cardiology, 2001Co-Authors: Patrick M MoriartyAbstract:Preventing heart attack and death in patients with coronary disease. Circulation 1995;92:2–4. 2. Block G, Hartman AM, Naughton D. A reduced dietary questionnaire: development and validation. Epidemiology 1990;1:58–64. 3. Kohl HW, Blair SN, Paffenbarger RS, Macera CA, Kronenfeld JJ. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:1228–1239. 4. Oliveria SA, Kohl HW, Trichopoulos D, Blair SN. The association between cardiorespiratory fitness and prostate cancer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:97–104. 5. National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II). National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Insitute. (NIH publication no.93-3095). 6. Pearson TA, Laurora I, Chu H, Kafonek S. The Lipid Treatment Assessment Project (L-TAP): a multicenter survey to evaluate the percentages of dyslipidemic patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy and achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:459–467. 7. Calfas KJ, Long BJ, Sallis JF, Wooten WJ, Pratt M, Patrick K. A controlled trial of physician counseling to promote the adoption of physical activity. Prev Med 1996;25:225–233. 8. Swinburn BA, Walter LG, Arroll B, Tilyard MW, Russel DG, The Green Prescription Study: a randomized controlled trial of written exercise advice provided by general practitioners. Am J Pub Health 1998;88:288–291. 9. Sherman SE, Hershman WY. Exercise counseling: how do general internists do? J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:243–248.
-
Relative Risk Reduction versus number needed to treat as measures of lipid lowering trial results
American Journal of Cardiology, 1998Co-Authors: Patrick M MoriartyAbstract:Recent clinical trials dealing with cholesterol Reduction in primary and secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease use Relative Risk Reduction to assess their clinical outcomes. Number Needed to Treat is a more valid measurement.
Jean Neemeh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a low molecular weight heparinoid compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke a randomized double blind study
Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992Co-Authors: Alexander G G Turpie, Michael Gent, J R Leclerc, William H Geerts, Mark Levine, Richard M Jay, Peter Powers, Robert Cote, Jeffrey S Ginsberg, Jean NeemehAbstract:Objective To compare the Relative safety and efficacy of a low-molecular-weight heparinoid (ORG 10172) with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Design Double-blind randomized trial. Setting Seven Canadian university-affiliated hospitals. Participants Eighty-seven patients with acute ischemic stroke resulting in lower-limb paresis. Intervention Patients received either low-molecular-weight heparinoid, 750 anti-factor Xa units twice daily, or unfractionated heparin, 5000 units subcutaneously twice daily. Treatment was continued for 14 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. Measurements Deep vein thrombosis was diagnosed using 125I-labeled fibrinogen leg scanning and impedance plethysmography. Venography was indicated if either test was positive. Overt hemorrhage, major or minor, was assessed clinically. Results Venous thrombosis occurred in four patients (9%) given low-molecular-weight heparinoid and in 13 patients (31%) given heparin (Relative Risk Reduction, 71%; 95% CI, 16% to 93%. The corresponding rates for proximal vein thrombosis were 4% and 12%, respectively (Relative Risk Reduction, 63%; P greater than 0.2). The incidence of hemorrhage was 2% in both groups. Conclusion Low-molecular-weight heparinoid, given in a fixed dose of 750 anti-factor Xa units subcutaneously twice daily, is more effective than subcutaneous low-dose heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.