PubMed · 11633487
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Brossollet. 1971. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11633487/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) are distinct diseases, yet many glaucoma cases in population-based datasets lack subtype specification. We assessed incidence patterns of glaucoma subtypes in China and the UK and used genetic evidence to infer the likely subtype composition of cases recorded as unspecified glaucoma. METHODS: Incident primary glaucoma was identified from linked inpatient records in the prospective China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB; n=512 504) and UK Biobank (UKB; n=492 329) studies. Cohort-specific phenotyping algorithms defined POAG, PACG and unspecified glaucoma. Adjusted incidence rates were estimated by direct standardisation. To support subtype inference, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were constructed using ancestry-specific genome-wide association studies, including a new East Asian PACG meta-analysis, and tested for association with glaucoma phenotypes using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Over 12 years of follow-up, 1658 primary glaucoma cases were identified in CKB and 7643 in UKB. Most (>68%) cases lacked subtype specification. Incidence increased with age and was twofold higher among women for PACG in both cohorts and for unspecified glaucoma in CKB. In UKB, POAG incidence was fivefold higher among Black than White participants, with a similar but attenuated pattern for unspecified glaucoma. PRS analyses indicated that unspecified glaucoma closely aligned with PACG in CKB but was more heterogeneous in UKB. CONCLUSION: Healthcare-recorded incidence patterns for POAG and PACG were consistent with established demographic risk factors, whereas unspecified glaucoma showed differences in subtype composition between populations. Integrating epidemiological and genetic evidence improves interpretation of glaucoma phenotypes when detailed clinical information is unavailable.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefits and harms associated with antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) prior to planned caesarean birth at late preterm or early term. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: South Australia, Australia, 2005-2018. PATIENTS: Women with singleton pregnancies undergoing planned caesarean birth between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks' gestation. METHODS: We used routinely collected electronic maternity and neonatal data. Adjusted risk differences (aRD) with 95% CIs were calculated for neonatal and maternal outcomes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal outcomes included respiratory distress requiring oxygen, hypoglycaemia requiring glucose, neonatal unit (NNU) admission and prolonged NNU admission (≥48 hours). RESULTS: Among the cohort of 4049 women, the proportion receiving ACS was 54.8%, 48.4% and 5.6% at 36, 37 and 38 completed weeks' gestation, respectively. ACS administration was associated with a significant reduction in respiratory distress across all gestations, with the greatest reduction seen at 36 weeks' gestation (aRD -12.5%; 95% CI -21.4% to -3.6%). At 38 weeks' gestation, ACS administration was associated with an increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (aRD 5.7%; 95% CI 1.1% to 10.2%), NNU admission (aRD 5.4%; 95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%) and prolonged NNU admission (aRD 4.6%; 95% CI 0.2% to 8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: ACS administration prior to late preterm and early term planned caesarean birth was associated with reduced risk of respiratory distress. The net benefit of ACS administration before planned caesarean birth remains unclear; however, there was evidence of potential neonatal harm when birth occurred after 37 weeks' gestation.
The randomised controlled trial sets the gold standard of clinical research. However, randomisation persists as perhaps the least-understood aspect of a trial. Moreover, anything short of proper randomisation courts selection and confounding biases. Researchers should spurn all systematic, non-random methods of allocation. Trial participants should be assigned to comparison groups based on a random process. Simple (unrestricted) randomisation, analogous to repeated fair coin-tossing, is the most basic of sequence generation approaches. Furthermore, no other approach, irrespective of its complexity and sophistication, surpasses simple randomisation for prevention of bias. Investigators should, therefore, use this method more often than they do, and readers should expect and accept disparities in group sizes. Several other complicated restricted randomisation procedures limit the likelihood of undesirable sample size imbalances in the intervention groups. The most frequently used restricted sequence generation procedure is blocked randomisation. If this method is used, investigators should randomly vary the block sizes and use larger block sizes, particularly in an unblinded trial. Other restricted procedures, such as urn randomisation, combine beneficial attributes of simple and restricted randomisation by preserving most of the unpredictability while achieving some balance. The effectiveness of stratified randomisation depends on use of a restricted randomisation approach to balance the allocation sequences for each stratum. Generation of a proper randomisation sequence takes little time and effort but affords big rewards in scientific accuracy and credibility. Investigators should devote appropriate resources to the generation of properly randomised trials and reporting their methods clearly.