De invloed van sensorische prikkelverwerking op het functioneren van volwassenen met autisme.

SamenvattingEerder onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat problemen met sensorische prikkelverwerking frequent voorkomen bij mensen met autisme. Dit onderzoek brengt in kaart welke invloed prikkelverwerkingsproblemen hebben op het functioneren van volwassenen met ASS. Doel van dit onderzoek en methode: in kaart brengen: a) welke patronen van prikkelverwerking aanwezig zijn in de steekproef b) hoe beïnvloed prikkelverwerking het functioneren en c) wat is de invloed van begeleiding op het functioneren? Informatie is verkregen door middel van vragenlijsten (AASP, ICF en WHO-DAS) en een semigestructureerd interview. Resultaten: mensen met ASS zijn meer geneigd prikkels te vermijden en minder geneigd prikkels op te zoeken in vergelijking met de gezonde normgroep. In hun functioneren ervaren deelnemers problemen op het gebied van opleiding en werk, bijvoorbeeld door vermoeidheid en concentratieproblemen. Sociaal contact wordt liever vermeden wanneer er teveel prikkels aanwezig zijn. Ook het omgaan met stress lijkt gerelateerd te zijn aan prikkels. Begeleiding lijkt een significant effect te hebben op het gebied van communicatie. Deelnemers die weinig hulp ontvangen functioneren slechter dan deelnemers die veel hulp ontvangen op dit gebied. Summary Previous studies have shown that many people with autism have sensory processing problems. The current study investigates how these problems interfere with daily functioning of adults with ASD. Aim and method: examine a) which patterns are present at participants b) how sensory processing affects daily functioning c) how support influences daily functioning. Questionaires (AASP, ICF and WHO-DAS) and a semi-structured interview are used to get information. Result: adults with ASD are more sensory avoidant than healthy adults. They are less inclined to sensation seeking compared to healthy people without ASD. Participants have problems with work and study problems as a result of tiredness and concentration difficulties. Participants prefer to avoid social interaction when an overload of stimuli occurs. Sensory stimuli also influence how people respond to stress. Support improves communication skills among participants. People receiving less help in their daily functioning have more difficulties communication wise, compared to people who receive adequate support. <br/

De invloed van sensorische prikkelverwerking op het functioneren van volwassenen met autisme.

Samenvatting Eerder onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat problemen met sensorische prikkelverwerking frequent voorkomen bij mensen met autisme. Dit onderzoek brengt in kaart welke invloed prikkelverwerkingsproblemen hebben op het functioneren van volwassenen met ASS. Doel van dit onderzoek en methode: in kaart brengen: a) welke patronen van prikkelverwerking aanwezig zijn in de steekproef b) hoe beïnvloed prikkelverwerking het functioneren en c) wat is de invloed van begeleiding op het functioneren? Informatie is verkregen door middel van vragenlijsten (AASP, ICF en WHO-DAS) en een semigestructureerd interview. Resultaten: mensen met ASS zijn meer geneigd prikkels te vermijden en minder geneigd prikkels op te zoeken in vergelijking met de gezonde normgroep. In hun functioneren ervaren deelnemers problemen op het gebied van opleiding en werk, bijvoorbeeld door vermoeidheid en concentratieproblemen. Sociaal contact wordt liever vermeden wanneer er teveel prikkels aanwezig zijn. Ook het omgaan met stress lijkt gerelateerd te zijn aan prikkels. Begeleiding lijkt een significant effect te hebben op het gebied van communicatie. Deelnemers die weinig hulp ontvangen functioneren slechter dan deelnemers die veel hulp ontvangen op dit gebied. Summary Previous studies have shown that many people with autism have sensory processing problems. The current study investigates how these problems interfere with daily functioning of adults with ASD. Aim and method: examine a) which patterns are present at participants b) how sensory processing affects daily functioning c) how support influences daily functioning. Questionaires (AASP, ICF and WHO-DAS) and a semi-structured interview are used to get information. Result: adults with ASD are more sensory avoidant than healthy adults. They are less inclined to sensation seeking compared to healthy people without ASD. Participants have problems with work and study problems as a result of tiredness and concentration difficulties. Participants prefer to avoid social interaction when an overload of stimuli occurs. Sensory stimuli also influence how people respond to stress. Support improves communication skills among participants. People receiving less help in their daily functioning have more difficulties communication wise, compared to people who receive adequate support

Clinical Trial Registration Patterns and Changes in Primary Outcomes of Randomized Clinical Trials from 2002 to 2017

This cross-sectional study evaluates the existence and timing of trial registration for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2017 as well as substantive changes to the primary outcomes entered into registry information after those studies started

The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are biased and difficult to reproduce due to methodological flaws and poor reporting. There is increasing attention for responsible research practices and implementation of reporting guidelines, but whether these efforts have improved the methodological quality of RCTs (e.g., lower risk of bias) is unknown. We, therefore, mapped risk-of-bias trends over time in RCT publications in relation to journal and author characteristics. Meta-information of 176,620 RCTs published between 1966 and 2018 was extracted. The risk-of-bias probability (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of patients/personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment) was assessed using a risk-of-bias machine learning tool. This tool was simultaneously validated using 63,327 human risk-of-bias assessments obtained from 17,394 RCTs evaluated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Moreover, RCT registration and CONSORT Statement reporting were assessed using automated searches. Publication characteristics included the number of authors, journal impact factor (JIF), and medical discipline. The annual number of published RCTs substantially increased over 4 decades, accompanied by increases in authors (5.2 to 7.8) and institutions (2.9 to 4.8). The risk of bias remained present in most RCTs but decreased over time for allocation concealment (63% to 51%), random sequence generation (57% to 36%), and blinding of outcome assessment (58% to 52%). Trial registration (37% to 47%) and the use of the CONSORT Statement (1% to 20%) also rapidly increased. In journals with a higher impact factor (>10), the risk of bias was consistently lower with higher levels of RCT registration and the use of the CONSORT Statement. Automated risk-of-bias predictions had accuracies above 70% for allocation concealment (70.7%), random sequence generation (72.1%), and blinding of patients/personnel (79.8%), but not for blinding of outcome assessment (62.7%). In conclusion, the likelihood of bias in RCTs has generally decreased over the last decades. This optimistic trend may be driven by increased knowledge augmented by mandatory trial registration and more stringent reporting guidelines and journal requirements. Nevertheless, relatively high probabilities of bias remain, particularly in journals with lower impact factors. This emphasizes that further improvement of RCT registration, conduct, and reporting is still urgently needed

Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials

Objectives: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy. Study Design and Setting: Full texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996–2017 were automatically identified and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs. Results: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs. Conclusion: This comprehensive analysis provides an insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs

Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Full-texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified, and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs. RESULTS: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using RobotReviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONSORT-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis provides insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs