Serrano, Valentina

Abstract Background The efficacy of lipid-lowering agents on patient-important outcomes in older individuals is unclear. Methods We included randomized trials that enrolled individuals aged 65 years or older and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. Pairs of reviewers selected and appraised the trials. Results We included 23 trials that enrolled 60,194 elderly patients. For primary prevention, statins reduced the risk of coronary artery disease [CAD; relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.91] and myocardial infarction (MI; RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.66) but not all-cause or cardiovascular mortality or stroke. These effects were imprecise in patients with diabetes, but there was no significant interaction between diabetes status and the intervention effect. For secondary prevention, statins reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.79), CAD (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77), MI (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.79), and revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77). Intensive (vs less-intensive) statin therapy reduced the risk of CAD and heart failure. Niacin did not reduce the risk of revascularization, and fibrates did not reduce the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or CAD. Conclusion High-certainty evidence supports statin use for secondary prevention in older individuals. Evidence for primary prevention is less certain. Data in older individuals with diabetes are limited; however, no empirical evidence has shown a significant difference based on diabetes status.

Purpose To characterize reporting of P values, confidence intervals (CIs), and statistical power in health professions education research (HPER) through manual and computerized analysis of published research reports. Method The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL in May 2016, for comparative research studies. For manual analysis of abstracts and main texts, they randomly sampled 250 HPER reports published in 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015, and 100 biomedical research reports published in 1985 and 2015. Automated computerized analysis of abstracts included all HPER reports published 1970–2015. Results In the 2015 HPER sample, P values were reported in 69/100 abstracts and 94 main texts. CIs were reported in 6 abstracts and 22 main texts. Most P values (≥77%) were ≤.05. Across all years, 60/164 two-group HPER studies had ≥80% power to detect a between-group difference of 0.5 standard deviations. From 1985 to 2015, the proportion of HPER abstracts reporting a CI did not change significantly (odds ratio [OR] 2.87; 95% CI 1.04, 7.88) whereas that of main texts reporting a CI increased (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.39, 2.78). Comparison with biomedical studies revealed similar reporting of P values, but more frequent use of CIs in biomedicine. Automated analysis of 56,440 HPER abstracts found 14,867 (26.3%) reporting a P value, 3,024 (5.4%) reporting a CI, and increased reporting of P values and CIs from 1970 to 2015. Conclusions P values are ubiquitous in HPER, CIs are rarely reported, and most studies are underpowered. Most reported P values would be considered statistically significant.