Browsing by Subject "MULTIPLE IMPUTATION"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-4 of 4
  • Sipilä, Pyry; Gulnara, Harrasova; Mustelin, Linda; Rose, Richard J.; Kaprio, Jaakko; Keski-Rahkonen, Anna (2017)
    Since medieval times, an association between religiosity and anorexia nervosa has been suggested, but few systematic studies exist. This study examines in a nationwide setting whether personal or family religiosity is associated with lifetime anorexia nervosa among women in adolescence and early adulthood. Women (N = 2,825) from the 1975 to 1979 birth cohorts of Finnish twins were screened for lifetime DSM-5 anorexia nervosa (N = 92). Parental religiosity was assessed by self-report when the women were aged 16 years. The women self-reported their religiosity at ages 16 and 22 to 27 years. Parental religiosity did not increase the risk of lifetime anorexia nervosa, and neither did religiosity of the women themselves in adolescence. In early adulthood, a J-shaped curve was compatible with the data, indicating increased risk both at low and high levels of religiosity, but this result was statistically non-significant. Religiosity was weakly negatively correlated with body dissatisfaction. There was some suggestive evidence for socioregional variation in the association of religiosity with lifetime anorexia nervosa. In this first population study to directly address religiosity and anorexia nervosa, no evidence was found for a significant association of religiosity with anorexia nervosa either at the personal or family level. Some regional differences are possible. A modest protective association of religiosity with body dissatisfaction is also possible. Despite compelling case descriptions of holy anorexia, religiosity does not appear to be a central factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in Finland, a highly secularized Christian country.
  • Rantonen, J.; Karppinen, J.; Vehtari, A.; Luoto, S.; Viikari-Juntura, E.; Hupli, M.; Malmivaara, A.; Taimela, S. (2018)
    Background: We assessed the effectiveness of three interventions that were aimed to reduce non-acute low back pain (LBP) related symptoms in the occupational health setting. Methods: Based on a survey (n = 2480; response rate 71%) on LBP, we selected a cohort of 193 employees who reported moderate LBP (Visual Analogue Scale VAS > 34 mm) and fulfilled at least one of the following criteria during the past 12 months: sciatica, recurrence of LBP >= 2 times, LBP >= 2 weeks, or previous sickness absence. A random sample was extracted from the cohort as a control group (Control, n = 50), representing the natural course of LBP. The remaining 143 employees were invited to participate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of three 1:1:1 allocated parallel intervention arms: multidisciplinary rehabilitation (Rehab, n = 43); progressive exercises (Physio, n = 43) and self-care advice (Advice, n = 40). Seventeen employees declined participation in the intervention. The primary outcome measures were physical impairment (PHI), LBP intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), health related quality of life (QoL), and accumulated sickness absence days. We imputed missing values with multiple imputation procedure. We assessed all comparisons between the intervention groups and the Control group by analysing questionnaire outcomes at 2 years with ANOVA and sickness absence at 4 years by using negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function. Results: Mean differences between the Rehab and Control groups were - 3 [95% CI -5 to - 1] for PHI, - 13 [- 24 to - 1] for pain intensity, and 0.06 [0.00 to 0.12] for QoL. Mean differences between the Physio and Control groups were - 3 [95% CI -5 to - 1] for PHI, -13 [- 29 to 2] for pain intensity, and 0.07 [0.01 to 0.13] for QoL. The main effects sizes were from 0.4 to 0.6. The interventions were not effective in reducing sickness absence. Conclusions: Rehab and Physio interventions improved health related quality of life, decreased low back pain and physical impairment in non-acute, moderate LBP, but we found no differences between the Advice and Control group results. No effectiveness on sickness absence was observed.
  • Gabay, Cem; Riek, Myriam; Hetland, Merete Lund; Hauge, Ellen-Margrethe; Pavelka, Karel; Tomsic, Matija; Canhao, Helena; Chatzidionysiou, Katerina; Lukina, Galina; Nordstrom, Dan C.; Lie, Elisabeth; Ancuta, Ioan; Victoria Hernandez, M.; van Riel, Piet L. M. C.; van Vollenhoven, Ronald; Kvien, Tore K. (2016)
    Objectives To examine the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) with and without synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) in a large observational study. Methods Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TCZ who had a baseline visit and information on concomitant sDMARDs were included. According to baseline data, patients were considered as taking TCZ as monotherapy or combination with sDMARDs. Main study outcomes were the change of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and TCZ retention. The prescription of TCZ as monotherapy was analysed using logistic regression. CDAI change was analysed with a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data. TCZ retention was analysed with a stratified extended Cox model. Results Multiple-adjusted analysis suggests that prescription of TCZ as monotherapy varied according to age, corticosteroid use, country of the registry and year of treatment initiation. The change of disease activity assessed by CDAI as well as the likelihood to be in remission were not significantly different whether TCZ was used as monotherapy or in combination with sDMARDs in a covariate-adjusted analysis. Estimates for unadjusted median TCZ retention were 2.3 years (95% CI 1.8 to 2.7) for monotherapy and 3.7 years (lower 95% CI limit 3.1, upper limit not estimable) for combination therapies. In a covariate-adjusted analysis, TCZ retention was also reduced when used as monotherapy, with an increasing difference between mono and combination therapy over time after 1.5 years (p=0.002). Conclusions TCZ with or without concomitant sDMARDs resulted in comparable clinical response as assessed by CDAI change, but TCZ retention was shorter under monotherapy of TCZ.
  • IPPIC Collaborative Network; Snell, Kym I. E.; Allotey, John; Smuk, Melanie; Laivuori, Hannele; Heinonen, Seppo; Kajantie, Eero; Villa, Pia M. (2020)
    Background: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. Methods: IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. Conclusions: The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice.