• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Minimum sample size estimates for trials in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review of a support resource

    2021-12-03 06:15:54MorrisGordonSvetlanaLakuninaVasilikiSinopoulouAnthonyAkobeng
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2021年43期

    Morris Gordon, Svetlana a Lakunina, Vasiliki Sinopoulou, Anthony Akobeng

    Abstract

    Key Words: Inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn’s disease; Ulcerative colitis; Gastroenterology; Statistics; Sample size

    INTRODUCTION

    Sample size estimation (SSE) is an extremely important calculation for designing a clinical trial. Failure to produce an appropriate calculation may lead to imprecise results[1]. If a sample size is too large, statistically significant outcomes may be theoretically detected that may not be clinically relevant (type 1 error). This, however,is rarely a concern as studies are rarely overpowered to balance the study power with the cost. On the other hand, if a sample size is too small then a clinically significant outcome may not be detected statistically (type 2 error)[2 ,3]. The reporting of SSE in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a standard requirement according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement which was introduced as a guide to conducting RCTs in 1996 [4].

    In a previous systematic review[5], we showed that 25 % of RCTs on interventions for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have no power calculation (PC). A third of those who report PC do not achieve their target sample size. Based on those results, we decided to conduct a further systematic review.

    We set out to systematically review RCTs on interventions for the IBD management,extract the vital parameters needed for sample size calculations, and synthesise the data to demonstrate whether trials across the field are adequately powered. We also set out to use the actual clinical data across these comparisons to synthesise data for minimum sample sizes that would achieve appropriate power to support future researchers designing trials and performing SSEs.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    This review was performed in alignment with Cochrane guidelines[6] in April 2020 and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement[7].

    Eligibility criteria

    We followed the sampling methodology described within our systematic review protocol (uploaded within our institutional repository)[8] used for our previous review of the reporting of sample size calculations[5].

    In brief, we included RCTs investigating either induction or maintenance therapy with biologics, immunomodulators, and microbiome against control, placebo, or no intervention. We conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane IBD Specialized Trials Register, CENTRAL, Cochrane library of IBD reviews for primary RCTs. The search terms are presented in Supplementary material.

    We included RCTs published since 1996 (after the publication of the CONSORT statement). We excluded reports lacking clear information on the number of participants; cluster RCTs; pilot or feasibility studies; studies with mixed population of people with and without IBD; studies on secondary analyses of follow-up data collection after discontinuation of treatment. We excluded abstracts as these rarely allow space for such information to be presented. As we wanted to assess the established evidence for a PC of treatment for the IBD, we excluded RCTs describing all interventions where work may be at phase 3 (pharmacological:e.g.ustekinumab,golimumab, tofacitinib) or not under the three core headings (biologic, immunomodulators or anti-inflammatories).

    Complying to the above search strategy, two authors (SL and MG) identified RCTs titles that appeared to be applicable. These were independently screened and in cases of disagreement, a third review author (VS) was involved to reach consensus. Two review authors independently extracted and recorded data on a predefined checklist.When disagreements occurred, a third review author was involved, and the consensus was reached.

    We created an excel document to extract data regarding the trials. Firstly, we separated the studies into 8 categories [Crohn’s disease (CD)-clinical relapse, clinical remission, endoscopic relapse, endoscopic remission; ulcerative colitis (UC)-clinical relapse, clinical remission, endoscopic relapse, endoscopic remission]. Secondly, we grouped the studies according to the intervention used. One author extracted the data,and in case of any problems, the data was checked by the second author.

    The extracted data although is not available publicly can be obtainedviadirect contact with authors. The references of the included stuidies can be found in Supplementary material.

    Extracted data included

    (1 ) Number of events and participants originally assigned to each group; (2 ) Characteristics of participants; (3 ) The proportion that we calculated according to the number of events and participants (x = n/N), in which n is a number of events and N is a number of participants); (4 ) The difference achieved that we calculated according to the proportions of two groups (proportion 1 -proportion 2 ); (5 ) Intervention and control details; (6 ) Presence of SSE and calculation details [minimal clinically important difference (MCID) used for PC, power, significance level, target sample size]; and (7 )Outcomes (the number of patients recruited and completing study; the number of treatment success/failures; and the difference achieved).

    We used the studies in which intervention was compared to the control or placebo.We grouped those studies according to the interventions, type of treatment (induction,maintenance), and outcomes (relapse, remission) and calculated mean difference and mean MCID where it was possible.

    After resolving all the inconsistencies with data extraction regarding the use of sample size calculations for the studies with achieved difference of less than 10 %, we produced two tables (Tables 1 and 2 ). We recalculated sample size for those groups using the power of 80 %, probability of type 1 error 0 .05 , and the achieved difference.We used those parameters as they were the most commonly used amongst the studies.The parameters we used were two independent groups, dichotomous outcomes. In group 1 we have put the rate reported by the study of the intervention drug, and in group 2 we have put the rate of the placebo.

    The small lest MCID that was reported by the studies was 10 %, thereby, we decided to not reproduce PC for those studies with the achieved difference of less than 10 %.We also calculated the mean sample deficit in percentage based on the target sample size and achieved sample size reported by the studies.

    After receiving the sample size of participants, we made a decision whether the study is underpowered, and if yes, then by how many people.

    Data synthesis

    We produced descriptive statistics regarding the sample sizes for the studies grouped according to the interventions (Tables 1 and 2 ).

    Ethical statement

    As all data included already existed within the published scholarly output, no ethical approval was sought.

    Table 1 Overall summary of power calculations and sample size deficits

    RESULTS

    A total of 7451 potential citations were screened and 308 full texts assessed for eligibility. There were 209 texts excluded, 106 because they were published prior to the release of the CONSORT statement and 103 because they did not match our inclusion outcome. This left a total of 99 trials included, with 60 pertaining to CD and 39 to UC.The full details are shown in Figure 1 .

    The mean proportion of patients achieving clinical remission reported within the placebo groups of induction studies was 34 .34 % in CD trials and 26 .79 % for UC. For endoscopic remission, 0 % in CD and 29 .6 % for UC. The mean proportion of patients achieving clinical relapse for maintenance studies were 55 % for CD and 46 .79 % for UC. For endoscopic relapse, 78 .85 % in CD, and 28 .7 % in UC.

    Within CD induction studies, 26 out of 41 (63 .4 %) reported a PC and 19 of 26 (73 .1 %)in maintenance studies. Within UC induction studies, 22 out of 31 (71 %) reported a PC and 10 of 17 (58 .8 %) in maintenance studies.

    When considering the MCID that those studies reporting a PC employed for this calculation, within CD induction studies the mean difference was 33 % (range 20 %-50 %) and 27 % difference for maintenance studies (15 %-40 %). Within UC induction studies the mean was 26 % (range 19 %-40 %) and 27 % for maintenance studies (18 %-40 %). The MCIDs these studies reported rarely matched the actual differences achieved by these studies. In fact, the discrepancy between this estimated figure for the MCID used for the PC and the actual differences seen were a mean of 22 .8 % higher in CD induction studies, 13 .8 % higher in maintenance studies, 15 .7 % higher in UC induction studies, and 10 .2 % higher in maintenance studies.

    These discrepancies are proportionally large and in the context of PCs are clearly substantial and led to large numbers of studies being underpowered. These are summarised in Table 1 . Study specific data with further details is available upon request.

    Table 2 gives the results of our sample size calculations at the intervention specific level that employed the actual achieved clinical differences from previous studies,using the power of 80 % and the probability of type 1 error 0 .05 . This shows the minimum sample sizes that would be indicated for RCTs compared with placebo to use. Within comparisons where the mean difference was less than 10 %, no calculation has been given as this would be a very high indicative figure.

    DISCUSSION

    Within this review, it has been demonstrated that there is no clear basis or accepted standard for current practice for MCID estimation when producing a PC for a primary RCT within IBD. This has led to huge variations in suggested figures for recruitment.These trials present practical and logistical challenges to organisers, with potential inconvenience to patients, as well as the cost to those funding such research. Having an accurate figure for calculations is important to ensure this investment of resource is used most efficiently and effectively. It is key to note that we are not commenting atthe individual study level. It is inappropriate to look at the projected MCID and PC for a project, if calculated on a reasonable basis, to then retrospectively suggest that the findings of a lesser MCID mean it is underpowered. This not just statistically inappropriate, but methodologically flawed. However, these findings propose that the basis for such MCID estimations is at worst unclear and often can be seen as flawed.

    TabIe 2 ProposaIs for minimum cIinicaIIy important difference and associated power caIcuIations for future studies

    Outcome-endoscopic relapse Interventional diet vs Control diet-2 .5 %NA Vedolizumab vs Placebo-3460 Antibiotics vs Placebo -14 .6 %360 Methotrexate vs Placebo -24 .2 %1285 -ASA vs Placebo -16 .4 %290 Methotrexate vs Placebo -24 .2 %128 Outcome-endoscopic relapse 5 -ASA vs Placebo 2 .7 %NA Azathioprine vs Placebo -23 %1306 -MP vs Placebo -3 .8 %NA Antibiotics vs Placebo 6 .6 %NA Induction studies Outcome-clinical remission Outcome-clinical remission Vedolizumab vs Placebo 14 .8 %190 Glutamine-enriched diet vs Placebo-11 .1634 Azathioprine vs Placebo -3 .6 %NA 6 -MP vs Placebo 5 %NA Fecal Transplant vs Control 20 .3 %1506 -MP vs Placebo 5 %NA Budesonide vs Placebo 6 .5 %NA Interventional diet vs Control diet 20 .9 %160 Type 1 IFNs vs Placebo 5 .9 %NA Elemental diet vs Non elemental diet 1 .6 %NA Etrolizumab vs Placebo 13 .4 %140 N6 /N9 rich feeds vs non N6 /N9 rich food-1 .1 %NA Low dose naltrexone vs Placebo 9 %NA 5 -ASA vs Placebo 11 .8 %422 GM-CSF vs Placebo 7 .8 %NA Outcome-endoscopic remission Brakinumab vs Placebo 8 .5 %NA Vedolizumab vs Placebo 37 .7 %182 Ustekinumab vs Placebo 8 .6 %NA Natalizumab vs Placebo 14 .8 %310 Fecal Transplant vs Control 26 .4 %160 Methotrexate vs Placebo -14 .8 %350 Budesonide vs Placebo 13 .9 %NA Antibiotics vs Placebo 10 %780 Methotrexate vs Placebo 46 .7 %NA Outcome-endoscopic remission Etrolizumab vs Placebo 7 .7 %NA Low dose naltrexone vs Placebo 22 .2 %605 -ASA vs Placebo 53 .7 %306 Maintenance studies Outcome-clinical relapse Outcome-clinical relapse 5 -ASA vs Placebo -16 .4 %2905 -ASA vs Placebo,medically induced 3 .1 %NA Vedolizumab vs Placebo-27 .4845 -ASA vs Placebo,surgically induced-5 .4 %NA Interventional diet vs Control diet-3 .6 %NA Anti-TB vs Placebo -23 %130 Probiotics vs Control-16 .7154 Azathioprine vs Placebo,medically induced-9 .9 %NA

    Azathioprine vs Placebo-22 .4154 Azathioprine vs Placebo,surgically induced-17 .3 %254 Methotrexate vs Placebo 19 .9 %1946 -MP vs Placebo,surgically induced-10 .9 %646 Rectal 5 -ASA vs Placebo-29 %90 Omega -3 fatty acids diet vs Control diet-8 .5 %NA Curcumin vs Placebo-9 .6 %NA Elemental diet vs No supplemets-29 .4 %88 Outcome-endoscopic relapse Interventional diet vs Control diet-2 .5 %NA Vedolizumab vs Placebo-3460 Antibiotics vs Placebo -14 .6 %360 Methotrexate vs Placebo -24 .2 %1285 -ASA vs Placebo -16 .4 %290 Methotrexate vs Placebo -24 .2 %128 Outcome-endoscopic relapse 5 -ASA vs Placebo 2 .7 %NA Azathioprine vs Placebo -23 %1306 -MP vs Placebo -3 .8 %NA Antibiotics vs Placebo 6 .6 %NA NA is put when the difference achieved is less than 10 % (which is the least Minimal Clinically Important Difference used by the studies).

    Figure 1 Study flow diagram. UC: Ulcerative colitis; CD: Crohn’s disease.

    There are further ethical issues these problems raise, such as being forced to give treatments to people without having a statistically proved effect or a high certainty result within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation analysis (due to reasons of imprecision from statistical sampling issues).The power of a study, therefore, has huge implications on the precision of estimates in the future analysis of data and in turn clinical practice guidelines. Within this review,30 % of studies appeared to be underpowered based on actual achieved clinical differences within the wider comparable evidence base, with mean sample size deficits up to 79 patients per trial. This does impact the overall certainty of the global evidence base within IBD, with precision a key limitation downgrading many outcomes within key guidelines across dozens of interventions.

    Within this review, we present a resource for SSE not just for future study authors,but for study peer reviewers and most importantly professionals and the patients. This table gives an estimated PC result for a minimum sample size based on all existing studies within this period. Rather than being based on just single studies or clinical judgement, these represent estimates based on actual achieved clinical data and to our knowledge are the first time such a resource has ever been provided for researchers in the field or indeed for readers of future research. Additionally, for those wishing to calculate key statistics and measures of outcome from their primary studies, this paper provides a systematic and objective resource for baseline risk. This could be used for calculating numbers needed to treat or harm, for example.

    This resource can be used by study designers to prevent PCs based on studies that offer a high MCID and as such a lower minimum sample size than is actually warranted. Conversely, it prevents unnecessary over recruitment. Funders can use this to appropriately budget and ensure viability of studies. Ethics boards and other governance groups will be able to consult this resource to support their consideration of research proposals.

    There were a number of comparisons where the difference in practice was below 10 % and it was deemed inappropriate to make a calculation in such cases, as no previous study has ever indicated an MCID below 10 % as clinically significant to patients or practice. In these cases, consideration should be given to the overall figures presented in Table 2 or minimum sample size and MCID in practice in a similar context.

    We would also recommend that in practice, patients and key stakeholders should be involved in deciding on an MCID for a given intervention prior to a new study. They may indicate that in spite of any existing MCID evidence that such a difference is not significant enough to matter to those who are most impacted by the findings and such views must be reflected in the process of SSE. It is also worth noting that there will always be settings and contexts when deviation may be warranted, thereby, a resource is not prescriptive but rather presented as evidence-based guidance. We would,however, propose that such deviations can and should be justified to support transparency for the readings these trials report.

    There are weaknesses and exceptions to these approaches. The search methods used limited the parameters of the search for pragmatic reasons. However, this does not represent any systematic bias, hence we do not believe it invalidates the findings, and in the future this resource can be updated prospectively. When the achieved difference was less than 10 %, rather than reporting extremely large sample size calculations, no such calculation was made. Additionally, in studies comparing active agents, accurate estimates are needed based on the contexts as the hypothesis may not be of the inferiority or superiority but of no difference, which requires a different approach to calculations.

    There were some limitations to this review. There are obvious issues of heterogeneity limiting the appropriateness of pooling the data, however, the only way to obtain the previously used MCID was through looking at the past studies. These are mainly related to missing or unclear information in primary studies regarding SSE and as authors were not contacted, assumptions were made for the basis of these calculations which could confer some inaccuracy in our estimations. We also limited our studies to those from after the CONSORT statement release as we felt this was a fair time from which to expect SSE to occur, but earlier studies could potentially have offered more insight. Finally, we have focussed on studies comparing treatment with placebo or no intervention. This was a pragmatic decision as many studies of agents choose to make this comparison, although often these do not reflect current standard clinical practice. In the cases of such comparisons, SSE may not have to be based on a MCID but instead assume clinical equivalency and therefore be informed differently.In essence, this guidance may not be relevant for these scenarios, although may inform statistical considerations within similar contexts. Finally, such a resource of course is likely to become inaccurate rapidly, with the need for updates, but as often no such resource is employed, we believe this is still an improvement on current practices.

    Future researcher is needed to potentially validate the calculations with clinical and patient input to ensure the SSE and MCID that the data informs has clinical, as well as statistical relevance. This could lead to a more triangulated resource that is statistically and evidentially sound, but also clinically sound and patient informed. This could conceivably lead to increases or decreases in minimally important differences to reflect complexity in specific clinical scenarios and interventional contexts.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, a third of intervention IBD studies within the last 25 years are underpowered, with large variations in the approaches to calculating sample sizes and the minimum clinically important differences. The authors present a sample size estimate resource based on the published evidence base for future researchers and other key stakeholders within the IBD trial field.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    国产在线男女| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 免费大片18禁| 高清av免费在线| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 欧美+日韩+精品| 18+在线观看网站| 日韩视频在线欧美| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久6这里有精品| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产91av在线免费观看| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 小说图片视频综合网站| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 男女国产视频网站| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 91av网一区二区| 深夜a级毛片| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 黄色配什么色好看| www.av在线官网国产| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 中国国产av一级| 亚洲av一区综合| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| av卡一久久| 色综合站精品国产| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 中文天堂在线官网| 国产三级中文精品| 男人舔奶头视频| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 国产淫语在线视频| 国产在线男女| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 色哟哟·www| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 亚洲av男天堂| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 午夜日本视频在线| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 在线播放无遮挡| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 大香蕉久久网| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 国产极品天堂在线| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 禁无遮挡网站| 久99久视频精品免费| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 99热这里只有是精品50| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 日日撸夜夜添| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产精品一及| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| kizo精华| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产成人福利小说| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 老司机福利观看| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| av在线亚洲专区| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 午夜日本视频在线| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产美女午夜福利| av黄色大香蕉| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 午夜日本视频在线| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 一级毛片电影观看 | 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 深夜a级毛片| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 国产高清三级在线| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合 | 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 99热这里只有精品一区| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 插逼视频在线观看| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 日韩大片免费观看网站 | 一本一本综合久久| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 日韩国内少妇激情av| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 免费观看在线日韩| av免费观看日本| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| av国产免费在线观看| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 美女大奶头视频| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 身体一侧抽搐| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| av卡一久久| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产黄片美女视频| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| av卡一久久| 极品教师在线视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产精品三级大全| 毛片女人毛片| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 国产成人aa在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 免费av不卡在线播放| 精品人妻视频免费看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人av| 久久6这里有精品| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 97超碰精品成人国产| 22中文网久久字幕| 久久精品影院6| 久久久国产成人免费| 成人综合一区亚洲| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 老女人水多毛片| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 少妇熟女欧美另类| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 七月丁香在线播放| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 亚洲成色77777| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 日日撸夜夜添| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 三级经典国产精品| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 69av精品久久久久久| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 1000部很黄的大片| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 我要搜黄色片| 成人二区视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 永久免费av网站大全| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 亚洲av成人av| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 男女国产视频网站| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 只有这里有精品99| 嫩草影院精品99| 51国产日韩欧美| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 久久久久性生活片| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 大香蕉久久网| 日本wwww免费看| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲av男天堂| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | or卡值多少钱| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 免费观看人在逋| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 91av网一区二区| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 老司机影院毛片| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 久久久成人免费电影| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 在线播放国产精品三级| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 婷婷色av中文字幕| .国产精品久久| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 久久久久性生活片| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产精品一及| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 日本色播在线视频| 97热精品久久久久久| 国产成人精品一,二区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 亚洲av熟女| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 高清在线视频一区二区三区 | 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 亚洲性久久影院| 美女国产视频在线观看| 久久精品夜色国产| 精品酒店卫生间| 亚洲18禁久久av| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 亚洲18禁久久av| 美女高潮的动态| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 两个人的视频大全免费| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 免费看日本二区| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 日本五十路高清| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 欧美日本视频| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 舔av片在线| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 97在线视频观看| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 嫩草影院新地址| 中文字幕久久专区| www日本黄色视频网| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 一级av片app| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 一级黄片播放器| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 性色avwww在线观看| h日本视频在线播放| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 性色avwww在线观看| h日本视频在线播放| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 身体一侧抽搐| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 久久草成人影院| 日本熟妇午夜| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 全区人妻精品视频| 综合色av麻豆| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 日本黄色片子视频| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产乱人视频| 国产精品久久视频播放| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲成人av在线免费| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 欧美97在线视频| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 免费观看在线日韩| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| h日本视频在线播放| 丰满乱子伦码专区| av线在线观看网站| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 午夜免费激情av| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | 七月丁香在线播放| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| av专区在线播放| 亚洲综合色惰| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 69人妻影院| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 高清av免费在线| 精品久久久久久成人av| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 搞女人的毛片| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 国产美女午夜福利| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 综合色丁香网| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 亚洲综合色惰| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产精华一区二区三区| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 看黄色毛片网站| 日本wwww免费看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 大香蕉久久网| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 看黄色毛片网站| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 国产综合懂色| 午夜a级毛片| 成年免费大片在线观看| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 午夜免费激情av| 九九在线视频观看精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产午夜精品论理片| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 男女那种视频在线观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 亚洲最大成人中文| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 高清在线视频一区二区三区 | 久久99热这里只频精品6学生 | 我的老师免费观看完整版| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 丝袜喷水一区| 亚洲av.av天堂| 直男gayav资源| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 日本黄色片子视频| 午夜日本视频在线| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 亚洲四区av| 身体一侧抽搐| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 永久免费av网站大全| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| h日本视频在线播放| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲av一区综合| 特级一级黄色大片| 日本免费a在线| 国产免费男女视频| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 91狼人影院| 免费观看人在逋| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 欧美激情在线99| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 性色avwww在线观看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| av在线亚洲专区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 欧美人与善性xxx|