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.

Input: Consider Input: 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?

Output: 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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: To investigate the independent relationship of individual- and area-level socio-economic status (SES) with the presence and severity of visual impairment (VI) in an Asian population.', 'Cross-sectional data from 9993 Chinese, Malay and Indian adults aged 40-80 years who participated in the Singapore Epidemiology of eye Diseases (2004-2011) in Singapore. Based on the presenting visual acuity (PVA) in the better-seeing eye, VI was categorized into normal vision (logMAR0.30), low vision (logMAR>0.30<1.00), and blindness (logMAR1.00). Any VI was defined as low vision/blindness in the PVA of better-seeing eye. Individual-level low-SES was defined as a composite of primary-level education, monthly income<2000 SGD and residing in 1 or 2-room public apartment. An area-level SES was assessed using a socio-economic disadvantage index (SEDI), created using 12 variables from the 2010 Singapore census. A high SEDI score indicates a relatively poor SES. Associations between SES measures and presence and severity of VI were examined using multi-level, mixed-effects logistic and multinomial regression models.', 'The age-adjusted prevalence of any VI was 19.62% (low vision = 19%, blindness = 0.62%). Both individual- and area-level SES were positively associated with any VI and low vision after adjusting for confounders. The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of any VI was 2.11(1.88-2.37) for low-SES and 1.07(1.02-1.13) per 1 standard deviation increase in SEDI. When stratified by unilateral/bilateral categories, while low SES showed significant associations with all categories, SEDI showed a significant association with bilateral low vision only. The association between low SES and any VI remained significant among all age, gender and ethnic sub-groups. Although a consistent positive association was observed between area-level SEDI and any VI, the associations were significant among participants aged 40-65 years and male.\Question: Do composite Measures of Individual and Area-Level Socio-Economic Status Are Associated with Visual Impairment in Singapore?

Output: In this community-based sample of Asian adults, both individual- and area-level SES were independently associated with the presence and severity of VI.

Input: Consider Input: Context: We studied the impact of acute opioid administration on work-related exercise performance in patients with chronic back pain. A double-blinded, random-order, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was conducted. Subjects were predominantly men (63%), with a mean age of 49 years. Subjects performed a continuous lifting and lowering test to voluntary fatigue at a load equivalent to 33% of their predetermined maximal lifting load twice: Once after receiving a single intravenous dose of 1 mug/kg fentanyl (a narcotic analgesic) and once after saline placebo. Of the 30 subjects undergoing testing, 3 subjects were unable to complete testing due to medication-induced nausea. Subjects lifted on average 29.4 +/- 17.9 kg under the influence of fentanyl versus 25.6 +/- 3.1 kg with placebo (effect size = 0.23). Time to fatigue was higher in the fentanyl group (312 +/- 251.4 vs 231 +/- 199.9 seconds, effect size = 0.40), and these subjects also performed more total work (7004 +/- 5144 vs 4748 +/- 3147 J, effect size = 0.72). Opioid analgesia improves lifting performance in the short term in individuals with chronic back pain. Longer trials of the effectiveness of opioid analgesia as an adjunct to functional restoration programs are recommended.\Question: Does acute opioid administration improve work-related exercise performance in patients with chronic back pain?
Output: This article presents the results of a clinical trial showing that acute opioid administration improves work-related exercise performance in individuals with chronic back pain. Longer trials of the effectiveness of opioid analgesia as an adjunct to functional restoration programs are recommended.