STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Protection motivation theory and the prediction of physical activity among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in a large population sample.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the utility of the protection motivation theory (PMT) for explaining physical activity (PA) in an adult population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN: Cross-sectional and 6-month longitudinal analysis using PMT. METHODS: Two thousand three hundred and eleven individuals with T1D (N=697) and T2D (N=1,614) completed self-report PMT constructs of vulnerability, severity, response efficacy, self-efficacy, and intention, and PA behaviour at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Multi-group structural equation modelling was conducted to: (1) test the fit of the PMT structure; (2) determine the similarities and differences in the PMT structure between the two types of diabetes; and (3) examine the explained variance and compare the strength of association of the PMT constructs in predicting PA intention and behaviour. RESULTS: The findings provide evidence for the utility of the PMT in both diabetes samples (chi(2)/df=1.27-4.08, RMSEA=.02-.05). Self-efficacy was a stronger predictor of intention (beta=0.64-0.68) than response efficacy (beta=0.14-0.16) in individuals with T1D or T2D. Severity was significantly related to intention (beta=0.06) in T2D individuals only, whereas vulnerability was not significantly related to intention or PA behaviour. Self-efficacy (beta's=0.20-0.28) and intention (beta's=0.12-0.30) were significantly associated with PA behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Promotion of PA behaviour should primarily target self-efficacy to form intentions and to change behaviour. In addition, for individuals with T2D, severity information should be incorporated into PA intervention materials in this population.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Bias in the case-only design applied to studies of gene-environment and gene-gene interaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The case-only study, proposed as a design specifically for assessing departure from multiplicative gene-environment and gene-gene interactions, is of considerable potential value but there are concerns about its validity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and sources of bias in the case-only design by means of a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PUBMED databases were searched through to 7 October 2009. Studies that assessed bias in the case-only design applied to the study of gene-environment and gene-gene interaction were identified. Qualitative comments on the sources and extent of bias were extracted. A meta-regression analysis of the ratio (IOR(CC)/IOR(CO)) of the case-control (IOR(CC)) and case-only (IOR(CO)) interaction odds ratios was conducted based on studies in which both methods were applied to the same data set. RESULTS: The search yielded 365 unique articles of which 38 met the inclusion criteria. Potential sources of bias in the case-only design included non-independence of genotype and exposure in the source population. Meta-regression analysis, based on 24 evaluations, produced a mean IOR(CC)/IOR(CO) of 1.06 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.93-1.22], suggesting that bias in case-only designs is not common in practice. The I(2) statistic indicated that 23.9% (95% uncertainty interval 0-53.9%) of the observed variation was due to heterogeneity between studies, which was not explained by any methodological characteristics of the included studies. CONCLUSION: As understanding of the relationships between genes and environmental exposures in the population improves, the case-only design may prove to be of considerable value.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

"I inject less as I have easier access to pipes": injecting, and sharing of crack-smoking materials, decline as safer crack-smoking resources are distributed.

Among injection drug users (IDUs) in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, prevalence rates of HIV (20.6 percent) and hepatitis C HCV (75.8 percent) are among the highest in Canada. Recent research evidence suggests the potential for HCV and HIV transmission through the multi-person use of crack-smoking implements. On the basis of this scientific evidence, in April 2005, Ottawa's needle exchange programme (NEP) commenced distributing glass stems, rubber mouthpieces, brass screens, chopsticks, lip balm and chewing gum to reduce the harms associated with smoking crack. This study aims to evaluate the impact of this initiative on a variety of HCV- and HIV-related risk practices. Active, street-recruited IDUs who also smoked crack consented to personal interviews and provided saliva samples for HCV and HIV testing at four time points: 6-months pre-implementation (N=112), 1-month (N=114), 6-months (N=157) and 12-months (N=167) post-implementation. Descriptive and univariate analyses were completed. Following implementation of the initiative, a significant decrease in injecting was observed. Pre-implementation, 96 percent of IDUs reported injecting in the month prior to the interview compared with 84 percent in the 1-month, and 78 percent in the 6- and 12-month post-implementation interviews (p<.01). Conversely, approximately one-quarter of participants at both the 6- and 12-month post-implementation evaluation points reported that they were smoking crack more frequently since the availability of clean equipment--25 and 29 percent, respectively. In addition to a shift to a less harmful method of drug ingestion, HCV- and HIV-related risks associated with this method were reduced. Among crack-smoking IDUs sharing pipes, the proportion sharing "every time" declined from 37 percent in the 6-month pre-implementation stage, to 31 percent in the 1-month, 12 percent in the 6-month and 13 percent in the 12-month post-implementation stages (p<.01). Since distributing safer crack-smoking materials by a NEP contributes to transition to safer methods of drug ingestion and significantly reduces disease-related risk practices, other NEPs should adopt this practice.