Systematic Reviews in Neonatal Respiratory Care: Are Some Conclusions Misleading?

Abstract

An increasing amount of information is currently available in neonatal respiratory care. Systematic reviews are an important tool for clinical decision-making. The challenge is to combine studies that address a specific clinical question and have similar characteristics in terms of populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes, so that their combined results provide a more precise estimate of the effect that can be validly extrapolated into clinical practice. The concept of heterogeneity is reviewed, emphasizing that it should be considered in a wider perspective and not just as a mere statistical test. A case is made of how well-designed studies of the neonatal respiratory literature, when equivocally combined, can provide very precise but potentially biased results. Systematic reviews in this field and others should be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication to avoid misleading readers to potentially biased conclusions.

Minimal Invasive Treatment in Pelvic-Ureteric Junction Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review

“… 3 , 4 Despite various experiments and research, the exact etiology and pathogenesis of PUJO is still unknown. 5 On the other hand, the underlying cause of an acquired PUJO is relatively clearer. Acquired PUJO is associated with abnormalities of intrinsic factor, such as ureteral wall scarring, or the presence of external factor, such as retroperitoneal mass or fibrosis.…”