SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “survivorship bias”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

313 records · Page 18Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Risk of mortality and complications in people with depressive disorder and co-occurring diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: People with depressive disorder have increased premature mortality and higher rates of diabetes mellitus than general population. Evidence shows that diabetes may further increase their risk of premature death from diabetes-related complications, especially cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Earlier studies examining depression-associated outcomes in diabetes patients have shown mixed results and were hindered by important limitations, especially the use of self-reported questionnaires to ascertain depression, causing misclassification bias by identifying subclinical symptoms or diabetes distress. Associations of depression with specific diabetes complications have not been systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the risk of mortality and complications among patients with depression and co-occurring diabetes (depression-diabetes group) relative to patients with diabetes-only (diabetes-only group), on their all-cause mortality rates, and if applicable cause-specific mortality rates, and occurrence of specific diabetes complications. METHODS: We systematically reviewed and quantitatively synthesized diabetes-related outcomes in patients with depression by searching Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Web-of-Science from inception to 20 December 2024, and included studies that examined mortality and complication outcomes in depression-diabetes group relative to diabetes-only group. Results were synthesized by random-effects meta-analytic models, with stratified-analyses (subgroup analyses and meta-regression) by study-level characteristics, including age, gender, study period, geographic region, follow-up duration and nature of diabetes sample. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024595145). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were identified from nine geographic regions. Regarding mortality risk, depression-diabetes group exhibited increased risks of all-cause mortality (RR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.21-1.39]) and CVD-specific mortality (1.15 [1.02-1.29]) relative to diabetes-only group. Regarding complication risk, depression-diabetes group showed increased risk of complications (1.28 [1.18-1.40]) relative to diabetes-only group, especially in incident-diabetes sample signifying advanced disease stage upon presentation, with stratified-analyses showing higher risk of metabolic complications (1.63 [1.33-1.99]) and cardiovascular complications (1.20 [1.11-1.29]), and lower likelihood of retinopathy (0.84 [0.76-0.94]), albeit comparable rates of cerebrovascular complications (1.36 [0.99-1.87]), nephropathy (1.09 [0.93-1.27]) and peripheral-vascular complications (0.97 [0.79-1.18]). Both overall mortality and complication risks were present in various regions and persisted over time. Heterogeneities were noted and could not be entirely explained by stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that patients with depression and co-occurring diabetes were associated with elevated overall mortality risk and complication risk (particularly metabolic and cardiovascular-complications) than non-depressed counterparts, suggesting an overall poorer glycemic control that might eventually drive their earlier death. Comprehensive and multipronged interventions are needed for individualized risk estimation of diabetes-related outcomes, with consequent early interventions to minimize the avoidable physical morbidity and premature mortality in this vulnerable population.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Astigmatic vector outcomes after FS-LASIK versus SMILE for high myopic astigmatism: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study without cyclotorsion compensation.

PURPOSE: To compare astigmatic correction vector outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, also termed Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction, KLEx) without intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation in patients with high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D), and to clarify procedure-specific correction tendencies under this non-standardized alignment protocol. METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study enrolled 155 eyes (one eye randomly selected per patient) that underwent FS-LASIK (80 eyes) or SMILE/KLEx (75 eyes) for high myopic astigmatism correction from January 2023 to July 2024 in Beijing Fenglian Jiayue Lige Clinic. Intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation was intentionally disabled to isolate inherent procedural astigmatism correction characteristics. Standardized Alpins vectorial analysis was performed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 12-month Alpins correction index (CI). Multivariable propensity score adjustment was applied to mitigate confounding by clinical treatment selection bias. Statistical multiplicity control was implemented for secondary vector and visual outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, refractive, corneal and ocular biometric parameters were balanced between groups after propensity matching. No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, safety index or efficacy index at 3 and 12 months (all P > 0.05). Under the non-cyclotorsion-compensated protocol, significant intergroup differences were identified in the magnitude of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), correction index (CI), and magnitude error (ME) at both follow-up timepoints (all P < 0.0001). Target induced astigmatism (TIA), difference vector (DV), index of success (IOS), and angle error (AE) magnitudes were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05). The vector mean axis of DV differed significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months (Watson-Williams circular test, all P < 0.0001). No reoperations were documented in clinic medical records for either cohort. No standardized dry eye questionnaires, tear film testing or corneal nerve density metrics were collected to quantify dry eye adverse events; only unstructured clinical notes were reviewed for complication screening. CONCLUSIONS: Under surgical alignment without cyclotorsion compensation, FS-LASIK and SMILE/KLEx both yielded acceptable visual and refractive safety/efficacy for high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D) at 1-year follow-up, but demonstrated divergent astigmatism correction tendencies: FS-LASIK exhibited relative astigmatism overcorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.35 ± 0.43 D × 91°, CI > 1), while SMILE/KLEx showed relative undercorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.21 ± 0.53 D × 12°, CI < 1). These correction biases are specific to the study's manual limbal alignment protocol without cyclotorsion tracking and cannot be generalized to modern optimized surgical platforms equipped with automated cyclotorsion compensation. Residual refractive errors across both groups are likely multifactorial, including differential corneal stromal healing responses, divergent femtosecond/excimer laser tissue modification mechanisms, and uncorrected intraoperative ocular cyclotorsion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

How do we counsel patients on short- and long-term complications after hypospadias repair? - A survey study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypospadias correction remains one of the most performed pediatric urologic procedures, affecting up to 1/150 males born in the United States. Current studies suggest that surgical counseling has a significant impact on shared decision making, decisional regret, and long-term follow-up. However, no set paradigm currently exists for long-term follow-up or counseling. We sought to obtain consensus from established pediatric urologists the optimal content and potential short, intermediate, and long-term complications to be considered when counseling patients and parents of patients with hypospadias. METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved survey study, which sampled the responses of Pediatric Urologists from National and International listservs. A google scholar search was performed using key words including "hypospadias" and "long-term complications." Descriptions of pertinent short, intermediate and long-term complications were identified and compiled from existing patient handouts. Survey items were then developed asking respondents to rate proposed descriptions, provide potential edits, and describe their overall approach to counseling. RESULTS: A total of 290 surgeons were contacted with 120 (41 %) responding. In total, 89 respondents (74 %) identified as male and 105 (88 %) had undergone a pediatric urology fellowship. Most surgeons described a reliance on verbal counseling (95 %) with the assistance of hand-drawn diagrams (75 %) to explain long-term care, rather than electronic or audiovisual materials (3-12 %). Of note, fewer surgeons endorsed routine discussion of long-term complications (Range 29.2 %-50.8 %) than shorter-term complications (56.7 %-89.2 %). On a Likert scale, physicians reported that they were mostly satisfied (72 %) with their current approaches to counseling. DISCUSSION: Perioperative counseling has an important yet often overlooked role in surgical care. The aim of this study was to better understand current counseling practices in pediatric hypospadias to identify gaps in urologic care and areas for improvement as one of the most common conditions treated by pediatric urologists. Our results suggest that surgeons who perform hypospadias repairs have potential to include more comprehensive discussion during post-operative follow-up. We proposed a preliminary counselling guide for these concerns which incorporates language from the most commonly selected complication description by survey respondents. Future studies will involve expert consensus and patient input to confirm the adequacy of the content, the method of delivery, content appearance, and accommodations for health literacy. Limitations of the study include small sample size and response bias. The results are reflective of the summed responses of participants and are not reflective of individual providers or practices. Importantly, this study omits the input of other advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, etc.), nurses, and ancillary staff who are also crucial to hypospadias care. The proposed counseling guide represents a first attempt at creating standardization of hypospadias counseling. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who perform hypospadias repair do not routinely discuss long-term complications after repair, though are overall satisfied with their counseling practices. Better tools, such as improved multimodal counseling guides, could be used to deliver this counseling efficiently and accurately to ensure patients receive optimal long-term care. Future studies will focus on developing educational materials for short, intermediate, and long-term counseling on complications after hypospadias repair with input from patients and clinicians.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing.

BACKGROUND: For suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity troponins (hs-cTn) in accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADPs) with 0/1-hour recommended over 0/3-hour ADP. However, implementation of these ADPs, with universal use of hs-cTns, has not been directly compared in randomized trials OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficiency and safety of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour and a 0/3-hour ADP when implemented in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, noninferiority implementation trial compared the safety and efficiency of clinician decision making using these 2 pathways. To prevent incorporation bias, an independent hs-cTnI was used for formal adjudication using the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI). Efficiency was judged by the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours. The safety endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days (adjudicated index or representation type 1 MI, cardiovascular death, and urgent coronary revascularization) for those who were considered not to have ACS and discharged. The noninferiority margin, for absolute difference in sensitivity, between the ESC 0/1-hour and the 0/3-hour ADP was set at 3%, assessed with a 1-sided 97.5% CI. RESULTS: From December 2021 to July 2024, of 13,983 screened 3,543 individual patients with suspected ACS were recruited and consented from 2 major emergency departments in North-West England, with 100% follow-up achieved for all representations to any national hospital. The median age was 60 years (IQR: 49.5-70.5 years), 53% were men, 6.7%, and 7.6% had adjudicated index type 1 MI and MACE within 30 days, respectively. The turnaround time from sample to result for central laboratory hs-cTnT was 81 minutes (IQR: 69-101 minutes). The proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours was relatively low and did not differ substantially (21.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.07). In addition, the 0/1-hour pathway was noninferior for safety, in patients discharged, compared with the 0/3-hour pathway, absolute difference in sensitivity was +4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI: -2.5) in favor of the 0/1-hour pathway. The calculated sensitivities were 93.7% (95% CI: 88.4%-97.1%) vs 89.5% (95% CI: 82.7%-94.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour pathway failed to discharge significantly more patients within 4 hours of presentation compared with the 0/3-hour ADP. In addition, The ESC 0/1-hour was noninferior to the 0/3-hour hs-cTn pathway for safety of discharge, although safety for both pathways was less than that imputed by observational studies. This trial demonstrates that perceived benefits to emergency department efficiency of a reduced sampling interval are mitigated by central laboratory turnaround times as well as system constraints. (Pragmatic Randomised Trial of the ESC 0/1 Versus 0/3 Hour Troponin Pathway [MACROS2]; NCT05322395).

Acute Coronary Syndrome↗

PubMed2026

Performance of AI-Based Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Across Apnea-Hypopnea Index Thresholds: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but remains substantially underdiagnosed. Polysomnography (PSG) is the reference standard, but its cost and limited availability constrain large-scale case identification. AI-based screening tools may support risk stratification and referral prioritization, but their diagnostic accuracy across apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) thresholds remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based OSA screening tools at AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, with emphasis on models using non-PSG-derived inputs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 1, 2016, to May 3, 2026. Eligible studies included adults evaluated for suspected OSA or recruited from population-based cohorts, assessed AI-based models intended or interpretable for OSA screening, risk prediction, or screening-oriented severity classification, used PSG as the reference standard, and reported sufficient data to construct or reconstruct 2×2 contingency tables. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized separately by AHI threshold and input source using bivariate random-effects models, with 95% CIs and prediction intervals (PIs). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 60 studies were included, of which 47 contributed data to the meta-analysis. At AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, pooled sensitivities were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; 95% PI 0.71-0.99), 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89; 95% PI 0.66-0.96), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87; 95% PI 0.61-0.94), respectively; the corresponding specificities were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84; 95% PI 0.30-0.96), 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.85; 95% PI 0.39-0.96), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94; 95% PI 0.55-0.99), respectively. The corresponding areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.943, 0.907, and 0.920. For non-PSG-derived tools, sensitivities were 0.92, 0.85, and 0.81, and specificities were 0.70, 0.74, and 0.85 at the 3 thresholds, respectively. For PSG-derived models, sensitivities were 0.96, 0.90, and 0.85, and specificities were 0.82, 0.88, and 0.96, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested performance variation across selected study and model characteristics, including region, algorithmic framework, data source, and validation method. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based tools showed generally favorable screening performance for OSA across clinically relevant AHI thresholds, although wide PIs suggest variable performance across future comparable populations and settings. By synthesizing diagnostic accuracy across 3 AHI thresholds and distinguishing non-PSG-derived from PSG-derived models, this review extends previous broad or modality-specific reviews and offers a clinically interpretable, pathway-specific basis for linking model performance to intended use. The findings may clarify potential roles for non-PSG-derived tools in front-end screening and referral prioritization and for PSG-derived models in reduced-channel assessment and sleep-laboratory workflow support. Given substantial heterogeneity, limited external validation, and low or very low certainty of evidence, prospective validation is needed before routine implementation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗