AIM： To quantify smoking/lung cancer relationships accurately using parametric modelling.METHODS： Using the International Epidemiological Studies on Smoking and Lung Cancer database of all epidemiological studies of...AIM： To quantify smoking/lung cancer relationships accurately using parametric modelling.METHODS： Using the International Epidemiological Studies on Smoking and Lung Cancer database of all epidemiological studies of 100＋ lung cancer cases published before 2000, we analyzed 97 blocks of data for amount smoked, 35 for duration of smoking, and 27 for age started. Pseudo-numbers of cases and controls （or at risk） estimated from RRs by dose level formed the data modelled. We fitted various models relating loge RR to dose （d）, including βd, βdY and βloge （1 ＋ Wd）, and investigated goodness-of-fit and heterogeneity between studies.0.833 loge [1 ＋ （8.1c/10）] for cigarettes/d （c）, 0.792 （y/10）0.74 for years smoked （y） and 0.176 [（70 - a）/10]1.44 for age of start （a）. Each model fitted well overall, though some blocks misfitted. RRs rose from 3.86 to 22.31 between c = 10 and 50, from 2.21 to 13.54 be-tween y = 10 and 50, and from 3.66 to 8.94 between a = 30 and 12.5. Heterogeneity （P 〈 0.001） existed by continent for amount, RRs for 50 cigarettes/d being 7.23 （Asia）, 26.36 （North America） and 22.16 （Europe）. Little heterogeneity was seen for duration of smoking or age started.CONCLUSION： The models describe the dose-relation-ships well, though may be biased by factors including misclassification of smoking status and dose.展开更多
文摘AIM： To quantify smoking/lung cancer relationships accurately using parametric modelling.METHODS： Using the International Epidemiological Studies on Smoking and Lung Cancer database of all epidemiological studies of 100＋ lung cancer cases published before 2000, we analyzed 97 blocks of data for amount smoked, 35 for duration of smoking, and 27 for age started. Pseudo-numbers of cases and controls （or at risk） estimated from RRs by dose level formed the data modelled. We fitted various models relating loge RR to dose （d）, including βd, βdY and βloge （1 ＋ Wd）, and investigated goodness-of-fit and heterogeneity between studies.0.833 loge [1 ＋ （8.1c/10）] for cigarettes/d （c）, 0.792 （y/10）0.74 for years smoked （y） and 0.176 [（70 - a）/10]1.44 for age of start （a）. Each model fitted well overall, though some blocks misfitted. RRs rose from 3.86 to 22.31 between c = 10 and 50, from 2.21 to 13.54 be-tween y = 10 and 50, and from 3.66 to 8.94 between a = 30 and 12.5. Heterogeneity （P 〈 0.001） existed by continent for amount, RRs for 50 cigarettes/d being 7.23 （Asia）, 26.36 （North America） and 22.16 （Europe）. Little heterogeneity was seen for duration of smoking or age started.CONCLUSION： The models describe the dose-relation-ships well, though may be biased by factors including misclassification of smoking status and dose.
文摘目的:系统评价前列地尔注射液不同给药方式致静脉炎发生情况的差异,为临床提供循证参考。方法:计算机检索Pub Med、EMBase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库,收集前列地尔注射液不同给药方式致静脉炎的随机对照试验(RCT),筛选文献、提取数据并按照Cochrane系统评价员手册5.1.0评价质量后,采用Rev Man 5.2统计软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入20项RCT,合计2 562例患者。Meta分析结果显示,静脉注射前列地尔注射液致静脉炎发生率显著高于小壶静脉滴注[OR=4.11,95%CI(1.59,10.67),P=0.004]和静脉泵入[OR=3.50,95%CI(1.50,8.16),P=0.004];普通输液器致静脉炎发生率显著高于精细过滤输液器[OR=0.03,95%CI(0.01,0.08),P<0.001],差异均有统计学意义。结论:低浓度的前列地尔注射液,或使用精细过滤输液器致静脉炎发生率较低,静脉注射给药致静脉炎发生率较高。
