Biomedical subjects

M J Orza

Publications and source records attributed to M J Orza.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1994

Residential proximity to electricity transmission and distribution equipment and risk of childhood leukemia, childhood lymphoma, and childhood nervous system tumors: systematic review, evaluation, and meta-analysis.

In 1979, Wertheimer and Leeper reported an increased risk of cancer mortality among children living near 'electrical wiring configurations' suggestive of high current flow. Since then, numerous, often inconclusively small, investigations with conflicting results have studied the possible association between exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and health effects. The high prevalence of exposure to EMF has drawn attention to the issue of carcinogenesis. We report here the results of a meta-analysis of 13 epidemiologic studies of residential proximity to electricity transmission and distribution equipment and risk of childhood leukemia, lymphoma, and nervous system tumors. The combined relative risks for leukemia, lymphoma, and nervous system tumors are 1.49 (95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.00); 1.58 (CI = 0.91-2.76); and 1.89 (CI = 1.34-2.67) respectively. The reports of the primary studies were evaluated for epidemiologic quality and adequacy of exposure assessment. We found no statistically significant relation between combined relative risk estimates and 15 indicators of epidemiologic quality. Assessment of EMF exposure in the primary studies was found to be imperfect and imprecise. Additional high quality epidemiologic research, incorporating comprehensive assessments of EMF exposure collected concurrently with surrogate measures of exposure, is needed to confirm these results.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1994

Antipsychotic drugs: is more worse? A meta-analysis of the published randomized control trials.

Effectiveness and side-effects of high- versus low-dose neuroleptic treatment of chronic psychosis have been assessed through a meta-analysis of 22 published randomized control trials comparing different neuroleptic doses. No incremental clinical improvement was found at doses above 375 mg equivalent of chlorpromazine, while a significant increase in adverse reactions was observed.

Antipsychotic Agents↗

PubMed1992

Economic analysis in randomized control trials.

In medical technology assessment, randomized control trials (RCTs) play an important role in determining the relative efficacy of compared treatments. As scarce resources necessitate choosing among options for care, comparing costs of alternative tests, treatments, or programs also becomes important. This study assessed the prevalence and completeness of economic analyses in RCTs published from January 1966 through June 1988. It was found that only 121 of over 50,000 published randomized trials (0.2%) included economic analyses. For a random sample of 51 of these 121 studies, results revealed a mean quality of research score of 0.32 (SD of measurement = 0.14) and a mean economic analysis completeness score of 0.52 (SD = 0.13) on scales of 0 to 1. It was also found that higher economic completeness scores were positively correlated with later dates of publication (r = 0.28, P = 0.046) and with the presence of a statement of study perspective (r = 0.38, P = 0.006). A near-zero correlation between the economic completeness and the quality of research scores was revealed. Also noted were several deficiencies among the economic analyses, including improper allocation of overhead costs, absence of sensitivity analyses, and the fact that only 28% of the 51 studies included some form of aggregation of treatment costs and consequences. Progress in health care depends on accurate assessments of both relative efficacy and costs. The quality of both needs improvement.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1990

A meta-analysis of alcoholic beverage consumption in relation to risk of colorectal cancer.

Quantitative methods were used to review epidemiologic data relating consumption of alcoholic beverages to risk of colorectal cancer. The data (27 studies) supported the presence of a weak association. For consumption of two alcoholic beverages daily, on average the relative risk of colorectal cancer was 1.10 (95% confidence interval 1.05-1.14). Other findings were: (1) the association did not vary according to gender or site within the large bowel; (2) results from follow-up studies (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.51) suggested a stronger relationship than those from case-control studies (relative risk 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.12); and (3) the evidence supporting beverage specificity was not conclusive, although the results were consistent with a stronger association with consumption of beer (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.41) than with consumption of wine (relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.36) or liquor (relative risk 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.99-1.29). Because the magnitude of the association between alcohol consumption and risk of colorectal cancer was small, the findings regarding a causal role of alcohol were inconclusive.

Alcohol Drinking↗

PubMed1988

A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption in relation to risk of breast cancer.

Epidemiologic findings regarding the relation between alcohol consumption and risk of breast cancer have been inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis (a quantitative review) of the available data. To evaluate whether there was a dose-response relation between alcohol consumption and risk of breast cancer, we fitted mathematical models to the pooled data. There was strong evidence to support a dose-response relation in both the case-control and follow-up epidemiologic data. Using the dose-response curves that we calculated, the risk of breast cancer at an alcohol intake of 24 g (1 oz) of absolute alcohol daily (about two drinks daily) relative to nondrinkers was 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 1.8) in the case-control data and was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.2) in the follow-up data. We interpret these findings not as proof of causality, but as strongly supportive of an association between alcohol consumption and risk of breast cancer.

Alcohol Drinking↗