Publications by authors named "L G Hemkens"
Background: This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care were included in the systematic review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.
Conducting systematic reviews of clinical trials is arduous and resource consuming. One potential solution is to design databases that are continuously and automatically populated with clinical trial data from harmonised and structured datasets. We aimed to map publicly available, continuously updated, topic-specific databases of randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFArticle Synopsis
- * Out of 50 Cochrane Reviews analyzed, only 48% provided clear outcome definitions for the time-to-event analyses, and critical trial characteristics related to these analyses were often missing or inaccurately reported.
- * The inconsistencies in reporting and methods at both the trial and review levels hinder the reliability of meta-analyses on time-to-event outcomes, suggesting a need for improved standards in research reporting.
Serum Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Neurofilament Light Chain Levels Reflect Different Mechanisms of Disease Progression under B-Cell Depleting Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis.
Ann Neurol
October 2024
Objective: To investigate the longitudinal dynamics of serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) and serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) under B-cell depleting therapy (BCDT) and their capacity to prognosticate future progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) events.
Methods: A total of 362 pwMS (1,480 samples) starting BCDT in the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Cohort were included. sGFAP levels in 2,861 control persons (4,943 samples) provided normative data to calculate adjusted Z scores.