1,720,970 research outputs found
CRASH - Corticosteroid Randomisation after Significant Head Injury
No full textA large simple placebo controlled trial, among adults with head injury and impaired consciousness, of the effects of a 48-hour infusion of corticosteroids on death and neurological disability. CRASH was a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial undertaken in 239 hospitals in 49 countries. A total of 10008 adults with head injury and a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 14 or less within 8 hours of injury were randomly allocated 48 hour infusion of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone) or placebo. Primary outcomes were death within 2 weeks of injury or disability at 6 months. Prespecified subgroup analyses were based on injury severity (GCS) at randomisation and on time from injury to randomisation and analysis was by intention to treat
The added value of ordinal analysis in clinical trials: an example in traumatic brain injury.
Get PDFINTRODUCTION: In clinical trials, ordinal outcome measures are often dichotomized into two categories. In traumatic brain injury (TBI) the 5-point Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) is collapsed into unfavourable versus favourable outcome. Simulation studies have shown that exploiting the ordinal nature of the GOS increases chances of detecting treatment effects. The objective of this study is to quantify the benefits of ordinal analysis in the real-life situation of a large TBI trial. METHODS: We used data from the CRASH trial that investigated the efficacy of corticosteroids in TBI patients (n = 9,554). We applied two techniques for ordinal analysis: proportional odds analysis and the sliding dichotomy approach, where the GOS is dichotomized at different cut-offs according to baseline prognostic risk. These approaches were compared to dichotomous analysis. The information density in each analysis was indicated by a Wald statistic. All analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Dichotomous analysis of the six-month GOS showed a non-significant treatment effect (OR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.21, P = 0.096). Ordinal analysis with proportional odds regression or sliding dichotomy showed highly statistically significant treatment effects (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25, P = 0.0007 and 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30, P = 0.0002), with 2.05-fold and 2.56-fold higher information density compared to the dichotomous approach respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the CRASH trial data confirmed that ordinal analysis of outcome substantially increases statistical power. We expect these results to hold for other fields of critical care medicine that use ordinal outcome measures and recommend that future trials adopt ordinal analyses. This will permit detection of smaller treatment effects
Between-centre differences and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials: a case study in traumatic brain injury.
Get PDFBACKGROUND: In Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), large between-centre differences in outcome exist and many clinicians believe that such differences influence estimation of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trial (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of between-centre differences in outcome on the estimated treatment effect in a large RCT in TBI. METHODS: We used data from the MRC CRASH trial on the efficacy of corticosteroid infusion in patients with TBI. We analyzed the effect of the treatment on 14 day mortality with fixed effect logistic regression. Next we used random effects logistic regression with a random intercept to estimate the treatment effect taking into account between-centre differences in outcome. Between-centre differences in outcome were expressed with a 95% range of odds ratios (OR) for centres compared to the average, based on the variance of the random effects (tau2). A random effects logistic regression model with random slopes was used to allow the treatment effect to vary by centre. The variation in treatment effect between the centres was expressed in a 95% range of the estimated treatment ORs. RESULTS: In 9978 patients from 237 centres, 14-day mortality was 19.5%. Mortality was higher in the treatment group (OR = 1.22, p = 0.00010). Using a random effects model showed large between-centre differences in outcome (95% range of centre effects: 0.27- 3.71), but did not substantially change the estimated treatment effect (OR = 1.24, p = 0.00003). There was limited, although statistically significant, between-centre variation in the treatment effect (OR = 1.22, 95% treatment OR range: 1.17-1.26). CONCLUSION: Large between-centre differences in outcome do not necessarily affect the estimated treatment effect in RCTs, in contrast to current beliefs in the clinical area of TBI
Reducing the environmental impact of trials: a comparison of the carbon footprint of the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 clinical trials.
Get PDFBACKGROUND: All sectors of the economy, including the health research sector, must reduce their carbon emissions. The UK National Institute for Health Research has recently prepared guidelines on how to minimize the carbon footprint of research. We compare the carbon emissions from two international clinical trials in order to identify where emissions reductions can be made. METHODS: We conducted a carbon audit of two clinical trials (the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 trials), quantifying the carbon dioxide emissions produced over a one-year audit period. Carbon emissions arising from the coordination centre, freight delivery, trial-related travel and commuting were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The total emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents during the one-year audit period were 181.3 tonnes for CRASH-1 and 108.2 tonnes for CRASH-2. In total, CRASH-1 emitted 924.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents compared with 508.5 tonnes for CRASH-2. The CRASH-1 trial recruited 10,008 patients over 5.1 years, corresponding to 92 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The CRASH-2 trial recruited 20,211 patients over 4.7 years, corresponding to 25 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The largest contributor to emissions in CRASH-1 was freight delivery of trial materials (86.0 tonnes, 48% of total emissions), whereas the largest contributor in CRASH-2 was energy use by the trial coordination centre (54.6 tonnes, 30% of total emissions). CONCLUSIONS: Faster patient recruitment in the CRASH-2 trial largely accounted for its greatly increased carbon efficiency in terms of emissions per randomized patient. Lighter trial materials and web-based data entry also contributed to the overall lower carbon emissions in CRASH-2 as compared to CRASH-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRASH-1: ISRCTN74459797CRASH-2: ISRCTN86750102
CRASH-2 (Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage) intracranial bleeding study: the effect of tranexamic acid in traumatic brain injury - a nested, randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Get PDFBackground: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to reduce blood loss in surgical patients and the risk of death in patients with traumatic bleeding, with no apparent increase in vascular occlusive events. These findings raise the possibility that it might also be effective in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Objective: The Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage Intracranial Bleeding Study (CRASH-2 IBS) was conducted to quantify the effect of an early short course of TXA on intracranial haemorrhage and new focal cerebral ischaemic lesions in patients with TBI. Design: CRASH-2 IBS was a prospective randomised controlled trial nested within the CRASH-2 trial. Randomisation was balanced by centre, with an allocation sequence based on a block size of eight. We used a local pack system that selected the lowest numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight numbered packs. Apart from the pack number, the treatment packs were identical. The pack number was recorded on the entry form, which was sent to the international trial co-ordinating centre in London, UK. Once the treatment pack number was recorded, the patient was included in the trial whether or not the treatment pack was opened or the allocated treatment started. All site investigators and trial co-ordinating centre staff were masked to treatment allocation. Setting: Ten hospitals: (India) Aditya Neuroscience Centre, Sanjivani Hospital, CARE Hospital, Christian Medical College, Medical Trust Hospital, Jeevan Jyoti Hospital and (Colombia) Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paul, Hospital Pablo Tobon Uribe, Hospital Universitario San Jose de Popayan and Fundacion Valle del Lili. Participants: The trial was conducted in a subset of 270 CRASH-2 trial participants. Patients eligible for inclusion in the CRASH-2 IBS fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the CRASH-2 trial, and also had TBI [Glasgow Coma Scale score of <= 14 and a brain computerised tomography (CT) scan compatible with TBI]. Pregnant women and patients for whom a second brain CT scan was not possible were excluded. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated to receive either a loading dose of 1g of TXA infused over 10 minutes followed by an intravenous infusion of 1g over 8 hours or matching placebo. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the increase in size of intracranial haemorrhage growth between a CT scan at hospital admission and a second scan 24-48 hours later. Results: One hundred and thirty-three patients were allocated to TXA and 137 to placebo, of whom information on the primary (imaging) outcome was available for 123 (92%) and 126 (92%) respectively. The analysis suggested that TXA was likely to be associated with a reduction in haemorrhage growth [adjusted difference -3.8 ml, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -11.5 ml to 3.9 ml], fewer focal ischaemic lesions [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CrI 0.20 to 1.46] and fewer deaths (adjusted OR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.22 to 1.06). Conclusions: This was the first randomised controlled study to evaluate the effect of TXA in TBI patients and it found that neither moderate benefits nor moderate harmful effects can be excluded. However, although uncertainty remains, our analyses suggest that TXA administration might improve outcome in TBI patients and provide grounds for evaluating this hypothesis in future research
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
