• <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

    国产免费男女视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 免费大片18禁| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 免费看光身美女| 老司机福利观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 禁无遮挡网站| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 亚洲片人在线观看| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | av中文乱码字幕在线| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 露出奶头的视频| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 亚洲色图av天堂| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 麻豆一二三区av精品| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 日韩欧美免费精品| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 中文字幕久久专区| av片东京热男人的天堂| 久久久国产成人免费| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 脱女人内裤的视频| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品永久免费网站| aaaaa片日本免费| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 日日夜夜操网爽| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 色视频www国产| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲无线在线观看| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 久久久久久人人人人人| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 脱女人内裤的视频| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 99久久精品热视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 美女大奶头视频| 国产高潮美女av| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲不卡免费看| 美女高潮的动态| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 国产成人av教育| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 丰满的人妻完整版| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 日本与韩国留学比较| av在线蜜桃| 在线a可以看的网站| 手机成人av网站| 国产日本99.免费观看| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 国产三级中文精品| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| aaaaa片日本免费| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| av国产免费在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 两个人的视频大全免费| 波野结衣二区三区在线 | 国产精品国产高清国产av| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 老司机福利观看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 免费大片18禁| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 国产精品影院久久| 91久久精品电影网| 一区二区三区激情视频| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 欧美+日韩+精品| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 国产成人福利小说| 久久中文看片网| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 久久中文看片网| 草草在线视频免费看| 丁香欧美五月| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 身体一侧抽搐| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 国产三级中文精品| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 免费看光身美女| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 免费av观看视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 嫩草影院入口| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 免费看日本二区| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产成人aa在线观看| bbb黄色大片| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 美女高潮的动态| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 日本黄大片高清| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 久久精品影院6| 免费看十八禁软件| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| av黄色大香蕉| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 1000部很黄的大片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 91av网一区二区| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 床上黄色一级片| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| av福利片在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 午夜福利在线在线| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 亚洲激情在线av| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| www.www免费av| bbb黄色大片| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 制服人妻中文乱码| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 欧美3d第一页| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 欧美在线黄色| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 久99久视频精品免费| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 久久性视频一级片| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 天堂网av新在线| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 亚洲国产欧美网| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 少妇丰满av| 国产三级黄色录像| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 精品日产1卡2卡| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 在线a可以看的网站| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| www日本在线高清视频| 亚洲精品在线美女| 美女免费视频网站| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲国产色片| 色av中文字幕| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 午夜两性在线视频| 在线观看一区二区三区| 天堂动漫精品| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产高潮美女av| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 内射极品少妇av片p| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 成人18禁在线播放| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产视频内射| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 99热这里只有精品一区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 美女免费视频网站| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 日本黄色片子视频| 丁香六月欧美| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 操出白浆在线播放| 亚洲第一电影网av| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 久久久色成人| 99热精品在线国产| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 久久久国产成人免费| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产免费男女视频| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| av在线天堂中文字幕| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 床上黄色一级片| 久久久色成人| 天堂网av新在线| 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 乱人视频在线观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| av国产免费在线观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产成人福利小说| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 免费看a级黄色片| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 在线免费观看的www视频| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| av天堂在线播放| 亚洲av熟女| 制服人妻中文乱码| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 99久久精品热视频| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产乱人视频| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 校园春色视频在线观看| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 成人精品一区二区免费| 在线视频色国产色| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 亚洲 国产 在线| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 身体一侧抽搐| 色综合站精品国产| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| www国产在线视频色| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 午夜影院日韩av| 亚洲av熟女| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 免费看十八禁软件| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 在线观看日韩欧美| 内射极品少妇av片p| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 宅男免费午夜| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 一级黄色大片毛片| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产99白浆流出| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 欧美日本视频| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 热99re8久久精品国产| 黄色成人免费大全| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 男人舔奶头视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 香蕉av资源在线| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 欧美日韩黄片免| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 久久久色成人| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| bbb黄色大片| 色综合婷婷激情| 嫩草影视91久久| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 99热6这里只有精品| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 天美传媒精品一区二区| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 久久国产精品影院| 国产高清激情床上av| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 有码 亚洲区| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 欧美色视频一区免费| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 免费看光身美女| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产高清激情床上av| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 日韩免费av在线播放| 久久九九热精品免费| 香蕉久久夜色| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 亚洲激情在线av| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 亚洲国产欧美网| 亚洲内射少妇av| 免费在线观看日本一区| 有码 亚洲区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 亚洲激情在线av| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 日本免费a在线| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看 | 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 少妇的逼好多水| 成人欧美大片| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 日本在线视频免费播放| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区|