Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “POPULAR”

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.

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

At least 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.

Meta-analysis is essential for obtaining reproducible summaries of study results and valuable for discovering patterns among study results. A good meta-analysis will highlight and delineate the subjective components of these processes and vigorously search for sources of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, these objective are not always met by common techniques. For example, a scatterplot is an objective summarization if the data are uncensored, but inferred patterns should be regarded as subjective recognitions of the analyst, not objective data properties. Random-effects summaries encourage averaging over important data patterns, divert attention from key sources of heterogeneity, and can amplify distortions produced by publication bias; such summaries should only be used when important heterogeneity remains after a thorough search for the sources of such heterogeneity. Quality scoring adds the analyst's subjective bias to the results, wastes information, and can prevent the recognition of key sources of heterogeneity; it should be completely replaced by meta-regression on quality items (the score components).

Bias↗
PubMed1990

Inaccuracy of seven popular sphygmomanometers for home measurement of blood pressure.

Seven models, available commercially for the self-measurement of blood pressure, were subjected to a validation procedure in which three devices of each model were tested by observers who were trained to a high standard of accuracy. The models were the Omron HEM-400C, the Philips HP5308, the Healthcheck 'Cuffless' CX-5 060020, the Nissei Analogue Monitor, the Philips HP5306/B, the Systema Dr MI-150 and the Fortec Dr MI-100. The validation programme had a number of unique features which included assessment of interdevice variability before and after 1 month of home use, and a new form of analysis, which we term 'clinical', based on the likely influence of three grades of device inaccuracy on patient management. In the main validation phase, one device of each model was compared with simultaneous measurements made by two 'blinded' observers using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer (PyMaH Corporation, New Jersey, USA) in the same arm in 85 subjects with a wide range of blood pressures. Three models (the Healthcheck 'Cuffless' CX-5 060020, the Systema Dr MI-150 and the Fortec Dr MI-100) failed the interdevice variability tests and did not reach the main validation test. Two models (the Omron HEM-400C and the Philips HP5306/B) failed on the criteria set down by the American National Standard for Electronic or Automated Sphygmomanometers, as well as the 'clinical' criteria. The remaining two models (the Nissei Analogue Monitor and the Philips HP5308) were acceptable for the measurement of systolic blood pressure by both methods of analysis but failed in the 'clinical' analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The mercury sphygmomanometer was comfortably within the criteria for both methods of analysis.

Blood Pressure Determination↗