PPARG Case Study

Difference in ethnicity (de Mooij, M. (Ed.) (2010). and gender is a crucial role that has to be looked at

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

COMMENTS argument is that because the average effect size for published research was equivalent to that of a medium effect, the reviewer 's decision to reject the bogus manuscript under the nonsignificant condition was "reasonable." Further examination of the Haase et al. (1982) article and our own analysis of published research, however, demonstrates that the power of the bogus study was great enough to detect effect sizes that are typical of research published in JCP, which was our intention when we designed the bogus study. First, although the median effect size (if) for all univariate statistical tests, significant and nonsignificant, reported by Haase et al. (1982) was .083, this index was steadily increasing at a rate of approximately .5% per year, so that the projected median if- in 1981 (the year our study was completed) would be .13. Importantly, an r)2 of .13 corresponds to an effect size (/) of .39, which Cohen (1977) designates as a large effect. A further examination of the Haase et al. (1982) data also lends support to our argument. Their analysis examined the strength of association for 11,044 univariate statistical tests derived from only 701 manuscripts; thus, each manuscript reported an average of more than 15 statistical tests. Since statistically significant and

It does not appear within the context of the study that the literature review has bias or undue influence on the findings but rather to support their validity as the method of the study and findings of this study are presented from a different perspective. However to maintain a balanced perspective we should consider the reasons that to date only one previous study has been a

Cullen and Gendreau compare and contrast the many studies on this subject, the meta-analyses conclusions, their strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and the trends that follow the studies

An explanation of use of correlation studies in meta-analysis explains that often by doing so is to create conservative estimates or a down ward bias. This means that statistics presented in this meta-analysis may actually be higher than actual calculations prove.

This study used a meta-analysis; meta-analysis combines a number of different studies which are directed by several separate researchers to quantify the effects a given approach has on a specific outcome. By extending the data pool to include various different situations and increasing sample sizes the results produce a better quantitative estimate. Therefore there is a Level I of evidence for this research project. This is the strongest level of evidence because it uses already proven research to further expand the research

One might query the nature of the method used to collect and conduct the study due to the fact that it is a systematic review and meta-synthesis as a counterpart. LoBiondo-Wood & Haber emphasized, “a researcher who uses any of the systematic review methods of combining evidence does not conduct the original research or analysis, but rather takes the data from already published studies” (p. 229). This method was presented clearly and understandable to the

Limitations of the 15 peer-reviewed articles used in this review included some studies with small sample sizes, overlap

This is to advise you that the above-captioned investigation was officially closed on this date.

Each selected article was assessed for quality completed separately by the previous two authors using the Cochrane Back Review Group risk of bias criteria; greater than 6/12 indicated high quality or low risk of bias.8 The results from this assessment were included in the meta-analysis, in addition to another table with each study’s characteristics and results.

This paper adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) declaration(40) and registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42017078868.

The authors provided the information needed to address confidence in the study results. They described the risk of bias and the strength of evidence for each study. Therefore, the difference in the risk of bias explains the difference and variability in results (13). They reported moderate to high risk of bias and low level of evidence might result in decreasing the confidence in the treatment effect (15-17).

Diabetic nephropathy has worldwide prevalence due to diabetes complications crises , according to the united states renal data system reports that most common patients affected with type 2 diabetes were developed to End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) for twenty years , although the newly incidence of diabetes have been rising within constant level during the last twenty years until 2000 , the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy expected to rise 70% by 2015 ((Rossing, 2006).data records from Canada , Australia , Japan , Europe , show similar increases in ESRD related to incidence of diabetes (Van Dijk et al,2005) .

There is extensive and consistent data that shows genetic factors play an important role in predisposing an individual for type 2 diabetes, of which now 70 or more genetic variants have been associated (Ali,2013) from GWAS studies yet type-2-diabetes genetic risk has limited genes of major effect. Thus, the search for genes contributing to the risk of T2D has been difficult, and the genes themselves have been elusive. A range of genome-wide association scans for type 2 diabetes have been published which show hundreds of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome which have been assayed in samples from populations of almost entirely European ancestry, and novel genes such as TCF7L2, SLC30A8, IDE-KIF 11-HHEX,