Human Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies for Psychiatric Disorders: The Current Progress and Future Directions.

With the prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the limitations of the diagnostic scheme and treatment options of these disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies play a significant role in uncovering the pathological basis of psychiatric disorders and potentially using biological markers in clinical settings. The use of MRI in clinical research has grown over the past three decades, and current MRI research continues to provide an avenue to guide the development of diagnostic approaches and therapeutic solutions. However, the current shortcomings of MRI studies derive not only from technical limitations (i.e., the range of contrasts that MRI probes or sensors can create) but also from confounding factors in the current methodological approaches of case-control studies for psychiatric disorders. Thus, by reviewing the recent literature on MRI research on psychiatric disorders, we explain the current progress and limitations of brain MRI methodologies used to study psychiatric disorders. We consider the growing use of cross-disorder methods to identify shared and disease-specific pathological features across psychiatric disorders. In addition, we need to outline healthy developmental and aging changes of the brain and investigate the disorder difference as a deviation of the trajectory. Although these methods have provided us with new insights, the demarcation between psychiatric disorders based on a definitive set of pathologies remains limited. This challenge of disease stratification is further complicated by the presence of multiple different sets of disorder pathologies within a single disorder and the different progressive timelines of different disorders. As such, we introduce the ongoing research projects in Japan, namely, the Brain Mapping by Integrated Neurotechnologies for Disease Studies (Brain/MINDS) and the Strategic International Brain Science Research Promotion Program (Brain/MINDS Beyond). These collaborative research initiatives across Japan use neuroimaging and travel-subject harmonization to conduct nationwide MRI studies capable of providing large-scale coherent results, which may address the current limitations of MRI psychiatric disorder research.

Management of pediatric renal trauma - Results from the American Association for Surgery and Trauma Multi-Institutional Pediatric Acute Renal Trauma Study (Mi-PARTS).

BACKGROUND: Pediatric renal trauma is rare and lacks sufficient population-specific data to generate evidence-based management guidelines. A non-operative approach is preferred and has been shown to be safe. However, bleeding risk assessment and management of collecting system injury is not well understood. We introduce the Multi-institutional Pediatric Acute Renal Trauma Study (Mi-PARTS), a retrospective cohort study designed to address these questions. This manuscript describes the demographics and contemporary management of pediatric renal trauma at Level I trauma centers in the United States. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected at 13 participating Level I trauma centers on pediatric patients presenting with renal trauma between 2010-2019. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to report on demographics, acute management and outcomes. RESULTS: In total 1216 cases were included in this study. 67.2% were male, and 93.8% had a blunt injury mechanism. 29.3% had isolated renal injuries. 65.6% were high-grade (AAST Grade III-V) injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 20.5. Most patients were managed non-operatively (86.4%) 3.9% had an open surgical intervention, including 2.7% having nephrectomy. Angioembolization was performed in 0.9%. Collecting system intervention was performed in 7.9%. Overall mortality was 3.3% and was only observed in polytrauma. The rate of avoidable transfer was 28.2%. CONCLUSION: The management and outcomes of pediatric renal trauma lacks data to inform evidence-based guidelines. Non-operative management of bleeding following renal injury is a well-established practice. Intervention for renal trauma is rare. Our findings reinforce differences from the adult population, and highlights opportunities for further investigation. With data made available through Mi-PARTS we aim to answer pediatric specific questions, including a pediatric-specific bleeding risk nomogram, and better understanding indications for interventions for collecting system injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Epidemiological (prognostic/epidemiological, therapeutic/care management, diagnostic test/criteria, economic/value-based evaluations, and Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis).

Evaluation of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects in published multiperson N-of-1 studies: systematic review and reanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: Individual patients with the same condition may respond differently to similar treatments. Our aim is to summarise the reporting of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in multiperson N-of-1 studies and to examine the evidence for person-level HTE through reanalysis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and reanalysis of multiperson N-of-1 studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science and review of references through August 2017 for N-of-1 studies published in English. STUDY SELECTION: N-of-1 studies of pharmacological interventions with at least two subjects. DATA SYNTHESIS: Citation screening and data extractions were performed in duplicate. We performed statistical reanalysis testing for person-level HTE on all studies presenting person-level data. RESULTS: We identified 62 multiperson N-of-1 studies with at least two subjects. Statistical tests examining HTE were described in only 13 (21%), of which only two (3%) tested person-level HTE. Only 25 studies (40%) provided person-level data sufficient to reanalyse person-level HTE. Reanalysis using a fixed effect linear model identified statistically significant person-level HTE in 8 of the 13 studies (62%) reporting person-level treatment effects and in 8 of the 14 studies (57%) reporting person-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that person-level HTE is common and often substantial. Reviewed studies had incomplete information on person-level treatment effects and their variation. Improved assessment and reporting of person-level treatment effects in multiperson N-of-1 studies are needed.

The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have been published widely over the years to measure the value of health care interventions. We investigated the growth and characteristics of CUAs in the peer-reviewed English-language literature through 2012. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, a database containing more than 3700 English-language CUAs published through 2012. We summarized various study characteristics (e.g., intervention type, funding source, and journal of publication) and methodological practices (e.g., use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis) over three time periods: 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2009, and 2010 to 2012. We also examined CUAs by country, region, and the degree to which diseases studied correlate with disease burden. RESULTS: The number of published CUAs rose from 34 per year from 1990 to 1999 to 431 per year from 2010 to 2012. The proportion of studies focused on the United States declined from 61% during 1990 to 1999 to 35% during 2010 to 2012 (P < 0.0001). Although still small compared with CUAs in higher income countries, the number of CUAs focused on lower and middle-income countries has risen sharply. A large fraction of studies pertain to pharmaceuticals (46% during 2010-2012). In recent years, most studies included probabilistic sensitivity analysis (67% during 2010-2012). Journals publishing CUAs vary widely in the percentage of their studies funded by drug companies. Some conditions, such as injuries, have high burden but few CUAs. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years. The data suggest growing interest in cost-utility methodology, particularly in non-Western countries.