In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

[Q]: Context: To assess how different imputation methods used to account for missing variance data in primary studies influence tests of heterogeneity and pooled results from a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes.', 'Point and variance estimates for changes in serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were variably reported among 48 primary longitudinal studies of living kidney donors (71%-78% of point estimates were reported, 8%-13% of variance data were reported). We compared the results of meta-analysis, which either were restricted to available data or used four methods to impute missing variance data. These methods used reported P-values, reported nonparametric summaries, results from other similar studies using multiple imputation, or results from estimated correlation coefficients.', 'Significant heterogeneity was present in all four outcomes regardless of the imputation methods applied. The random effects point estimates and 95% confidence intervals varied little across imputation methods, and the differences were not clinically significant.\Question: Do imputing variance estimates alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes : a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation?
[A]: Different methods to impute the variance data in the primary studies did not alter the conclusions from this meta-analysis of continuous outcomes. Such reproducibility increases confidence in the results. However, as with most meta-analyses, there was no gold standard of truth, and results must be interpreted judiciously. The generalization of these findings to other meta-analyses, which differ in outcomes, missing data, or between-study heterogeneity, requires further consideration.


[Q]: Context: Patient selection for endovascular revascularization treatment (ERT) in acute ischemic stroke depends on the expected benefit-risk ratio. As rapid revascularization is a major determinant of good functional outcome, we aimed to identify its predictors after ERT.', 'Consecutive stroke patients from a single stroke center with distal internal carotid artery-, proximal middle cerebral artery- or T-occlusions treated with ERT were retrospectively selected. We assessed admission noncontrast computed tomography and computed tomography angiography for thrombus location, thrombus load (clot burden score), and collateral status. Clinical data were extracted from medical charts. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of revascularization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≥2b) after ERT.', 'A total of 63 patients were identified (median age, 73 years; interquartile range: 62-77; 40 females). Sixteen patients (25.4%) underwent intravenous thrombolysis (ivT) before ERT. Twenty-two patients (34.9%) had additional intra-arterial application of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. The overall recanalization rate was 66.7%, and 9.5% had symptomatic intracranial bleeding. In-hospital mortality was 15%, and 30% reached good functional outcome at discharge. In the univariate analysis, preceding ivT and the number of passes for thrombectomy (dichotomized ≤2 versus >2) were associated with recanalization. There was a trend for number of thrombectomy passes (as continuous variable) and multimodal ERT. In the multivariate regression analysis, ivT prior to ERT and passes of thrombectomy were identified as independent predictors for recanalization.\Question: Does intravenous Thrombolysis and pass of Thrombectomy as Predictors for Endovascular Revascularization in Ischemic Stroke?
[A]: ivT and lower passes of thrombectomy are associated with recanalization after ERT for ischemic stroke with proximal vessel occlusions.


[Q]: Context: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and subsequent feedback to surgeons in the management of acute pancreatitis.', 'An evidence-based Pancreatitis Proforma was developed. Data were prospectively recorded (01/06/2005-30/09/2007). Audit feedback (AFB) was performed at 9 months. A final analysis was performed comparing outcomes pre- and post-audit feedback.', '372 patients were included. Median age (range) was 57 (12-96) years. 168 (45.2%) patients were admitted pre-AFB. Post-AFB, there was a significant increase in the number of patients whose diagnosis was made within 48 hours (135/168 (80.4%) vs 189/204 (92.6%), p<0.001) and who underwent definitive treatment for mild biliary pancreatitis (33/61 (54.1%) vs 56/70 (80.0%), p=0.002). Post-AFB there was also a significant reduction in the number of computed tomography (CT) scans performed for patients with mild acute pancreatitis (23/85 (27.1%) vs 13/99 (13.1%), p=0.018). Mortality (9/168 (5.4%) vs 3/204 (1.4%), p=0.040) also decreased. On multivariate analysis, AFB was an independent factor for change in the use of CT scans (p=0.015) and management of patients with mild biliary pancreatitis (p=0.039).\Question: Is closing the audit loop necessary to achieve compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of acute pancreatitis?
[A]:
For evidence-based guidelines to be effective, feedback to surgeons is necessary.