Objective: To estimate the cost implications of early angiography for patients with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI).
Design: A decision tree model was used to synthesise data from the pilot study and literature sources. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of assumptions incorporated into the analysis.
Objective: To summarize the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and arthritis (i.e., unspecified) in the general adult population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: There is considerable unexplained heterogeneity in previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of patient decision aids on the accuracy of knowledge of outcome probabilities. The purpose of this review was to explore possible effect modification by three covariates: the type of control intervention, decision aid quality and patients' baseline knowledge of probabilities.
Methods: A sub-analysis of studies previously identified in the 2011 Cochrane review on decision aids for people facing treatment and screening decisions was conducted.
Background: Authors of randomized trial reports seem to hold a variety of views regarding the relationship between missing outcome data (MOD) and intention to treat (ITT). The objectives of this study were to systematically investigate how authors of methodology articles define ITT in the presence of MOD, how they recommend handling MOD under ITT, and to make a proposal for potential improvement in the definition and use of ITT in relation to MOD.
Methods And Findings: We systematically searched MEDLINE in February 2009 for methodological articles written in English that devoted at least one paragraph to ITT and two other paragraphs to either ITT or MOD.
Objective: To assess the reporting, extent, and handling of loss to follow-up and its potential impact on the estimates of the effect of treatment in randomised controlled trials.
Design: Systematic review. We calculated the percentage of trials for which the relative risk would no longer be significant under a number of assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up.
Objective: To test the reliability and validity of specific instructions to classify blinding, when unclearly reported in randomized trials, as "probably done" or "probably not done."
Study Design And Setting: We assessed blinding of patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and data analysts in 233 randomized trials in duplicate and independently using detailed instructions. The response options were "definitely yes," "probably yes," "probably no," and "definitely no.
Background: Incomplete ascertainment of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is likely to bias final study results if reasons for unavailability of patient data are associated with the outcome of interest. The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect. The secondary objectives are to describe, for published RCTs, (1) the reporting of loss to follow-up information, (2) the analytic methods used for handling loss to follow-up information, and (3) the extent of reported loss to follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF