39 resultados para CROSS-OVER STUDIES


Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a che-cklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

STUDY OBJECTIVES 1) To investigate the impact of acetazolamide, a drug commonly prescribed for altitude sickness, on cortical oscillations in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). 2) To examine alterations in the sleep EEG after short-term discontinuation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. DESIGN Data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized cross-over design studies were analyzed. SETTING Polysomnographic recordings in sleep laboratory at 490 m and at moderate altitudes in the Swiss Alps: 1630 or 1860 m and 2590 m. PATIENTS Study 1: 39 OSAS patients. Study 2: 41 OSAS patients. INTERVENTIONS Study 1: OSAS patients withdrawn from treatment with CPAP. Study 2: OSAS patients treated with autoCPAP. Treatment with acetazolamide (500-750 mg) or placebo at moderate altitudes. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS An evening dose of 500 mg acetazolamide reduced slow-wave activity (SWA; approximately 10%) and increased spindle activity (approximately 10%) during non-REM sleep. In addition, alpha activity during wake after lights out was increased. An evening dose of 250 mg did not affect these cortical oscillations. Discontinuation of CPAP therapy revealed a reduction in SWA (5-10%) and increase in beta activity (approximately 25%). CONCLUSIONS The higher evening dose of 500 mg acetazolamide showed the "spectral fingerprint" of Benzodiazepines, while 250 mg acetazolamide had no impact on cortical oscillations. However, both doses had beneficial effects on oxygen saturation and sleep quality.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Relevância:

90.00% 90.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND Assessment of endothelial function of the microvasculature by peripheral arterial tonometry (EndoPAT(®)) has gained increasing popularity in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. Only limited knowledge about its reproducibility in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is available. We therefore aimed to quantify reproducibility of EndoPAT(®) parameters in patients with stable CAD. DESIGN EndoPAT(®) measurements were performed repeatedly in 78 male patients (age 66 ± 8 years) with CAD on stable medication. We calculated overall mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the following parameters: reactive hyperemic index (RHI), PAT ratio of the postocclusion period 90-150 s as used for calculation of the RHI (PAT ratio90-150 s) and 90-120 s (PAT ratio90-120 s) as used for the often employed Framingham RHI (F-RHI), as well as PAT ratio of the peak hyperemic response (PAT ratiopeak response). Additionally, least significant changes (LSC) for individual subjects and minimum sample sizes for parallel and cross-over design studies were calculated. RESULTS Mean RHI was 1·84 (SD 0·36). For RHI, PAT ratio90-150 s , PAT ratio90-120 s , and PAT ratiopeak response the CVs were 17·0%, 25·4%, 26·1%, and 25·0%, respectively. The ICCs were 0·45, 0·49, 0·48 and 0·51, respectively, and LSC for RHI was 47·2%. CONCLUSIONS CV of RHI in our population was moderate; however, we consider this precision insufficient to monitor changes in individual patients, as they would need to exceed 47% to show a significant change. Further, the poor ICCs reflect the difficulty of detecting treatment effects in homogenous populations, such as patients with stable CAD.