106 research outputs found

    How Much Will I Spend? Factors Affecting Consumers’ Estimates of Future Expense

    Full text link
    Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141049/1/jcpy141.pd

    Does Gender or Religion Contribute to the Risk of COVID-19 in Hospital Doctors?

    Get PDF
    This webpage details and provides the research study conducted in the United Kingdom through online surveys focusing on the relationship between healthcare workplace prevention efforts, COVID-19 risks, religious identity, and gender. The research study focuses on healthcare workers, primarily hospital doctors and mental health doctors. A PDF of the entire study is available on the webpage

    Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer Choice

    Get PDF
    While consumer choice research has dedicated considerable research attention to aspects of choice that are deliberative and conscious, only limited attention has been paid to aspects of choice that occur outside of conscious awareness. We review relevant research that suggests that consumer choice is a mix of conscious and nonconscious influences, and argue that the degree to which nonconscious influences affect choice is much greater than many choice researchers believe. Across a series of research domains, these influences are found to include stimulus that are not consciously perceived by the consumer, nonconscious downstream effects of a consciously perceived stimuli or thought process, and decision processes that occur entirely outside of awareness

    Diagnostic Accuracy of Monitoring Tests of Fellow Eyes in Patients with Unilateral Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration : Early Detection of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study

    Get PDF
    Funding Information: The author(s) have made the following disclosure(s): R.G.: Personal fees ? Heidelberg Engineering.S.S.: Grants and personal fees ? Bayer, during the conduct of the study; Grants and personal fees ? Novartis, Boehringer Ingleheim; Grants ? Allergan, Roche; Personal fees ? Apellis, Oxurion, Heidelberg Engineering, Optos, outside the submitted work; Funded by the Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and Clinical Research Facility.The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project Number: 12/142/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. F.G.: Grants ? NIHR, during the conduct of the study; Grants and personal fees ? Novartis, Roche, Bayer; Personal fees ? Allergan, Alimera; Grants ? Chengdu Pharma; Grants and nonfinancial support ? NIHR, outside the submitted work. J.A.C.: Study grant ? NIHR. K.B.: Grants ? NIHR HTA Programme, during the conduct of the study. Obtained funding: Chakravarthy, Ramsay, Sivaprasad, Scotland, Azuara-Blanco, Heiman and Cook Publisher Copyright: © 2021Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    Does oral sodium bicarbonate therapy improve function and quality of life in older patients with chronic kidney disease and low-grade acidosis (the BiCARB trial)? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Date of acceptance: 01/07/2015 © 2015 Witham et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Acknowledgements UK NIHR HTA grant 10/71/01. We acknowledge the financial support of NHS Research Scotland in conducting this trial.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    DIAbetic macular oedema aNd diode subthreshold micropulse laser (DIAMONDS) : Ppotocol for a randomised clinical trial

    Get PDF
    Background In the UK, macular laser is the treatment of choice for people with diabetic macular oedema with central retinal subfield thickness (CST) < 400 μm, as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It remains unclear whether subthreshold micropulse laser is superior and should replace standard threshold laser for the treatment of eligible patients. Methods DIAMONDS is a pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, randomised, equivalence, double-masked clinical trial that aims to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema with CST < 400 μm. The primary outcome is the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to month 24 post treatment. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) include change in binocular best corrected visual acuity; CST; mean deviation of the Humphrey 10–2 visual field; change in percentage of people meeting driving standards; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 and VisQoL scores; incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; side effects; number of laser treatments and use of additional therapies. The primary statistical analysis will be per protocol rather than intention-to-treat analysis because the latter increases type I error in non-inferiority or equivalence trials. The difference between lasers for change in best-corrected visual acuity (using 95% CI) will be compared to the permitted maximum difference of five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Linear and logistic regression models will be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups. A Markov-model-based cost-utility analysis will extend beyond the trial period to estimate longer-term cost-effectiveness. Discussion This trial will determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser, when compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema, the main cause of sight loss in people with diabetes mellitus

    A Multi-Modal AI-Driven Cohort Selection Tool to Predict Suboptimal Non-Responders to Aflibercept Loading-Phase for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: PRECISE Study Report 1

    Get PDF
    Patients diagnosed with exudative neovascular age-related macular degeneration are commonly treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. However, response to treatment is heterogeneous, without a clinical explanation. Predicting suboptimal response at baseline will enable more efficient clinical trial designs for novel, future interventions and facilitate individualised therapies. In this multicentre study, we trained a multi-modal artificial intelligence (AI) system to identify suboptimal responders to the loading-phase of the anti-VEGF agent aflibercept from baseline characteristics. We collected clinical features and optical coherence tomography scans from 1720 eyes of 1612 patients between 2019 and 2021. We evaluated our AI system as a patient selection method by emulating hypothetical clinical trials of different sizes based on our test set. Our method detected up to 57.6% more suboptimal responders than random selection, and up to 24.2% more than any alternative selection criteria tested. Applying this method to the entry process of candidates into randomised controlled trials may contribute to the success of such trials and further inform personalised care

    Standard threshold laser versus subthreshold micropulse laser for adults with diabetic macular oedema : the DIAMONDS non-inferiority RCT

    Get PDF
    Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm on optical coherence tomography. The DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial compared standard threshold macular laser with subthreshold micropulse laser to treat diabetic macular oedema suitable for macular laser. Objectives: Determining the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomised, non-inferiority, clinical trial. Setting: Hospital eye services in the UK. Participants: Adults with diabetes and centre-involving diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of  24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (Snellen equivalent > 20/320) in one/both eyes. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive 577 nm subthreshold micropulse laser or standard threshold macular laser (e.g. argon laser, frequency-doubled neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet 532 nm laser); laser treatments could be repeated as needed. Rescue therapy with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was allowed if a loss of ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters between visits occurred and/or central retinal subfield thickness increased to > 400 µm. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye at 24 months (non-inferiority margin 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). Secondary outcomes included the mean change from baseline to 24 months in the following: binocular best-corrected visual acuity; central retinal subfield thickness; the mean deviation of the Humphrey 10–2 visual field in the study eye; the percentage of people meeting driving standards; and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire – 25 and Vision and Quality of Life Index scores. Other secondary outcomes were the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained, adverse effects, number of laser treatments and additional rescue treatments. Results: The DIAMONDS trial recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of participants in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and 86% of participants in the standard threshold macular laser group had primary outcome data. Groups were balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Mean best-corrected visual acuity change in the study eye from baseline to month 24 was –2.43 letters (standard deviation 8.20 letters) in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and –0.45 letters (standard deviation 6.72 letters) in the standard threshold macular laser group. Subthreshold micropulse laser was deemed to be not only non-inferior but also equivalent to standard threshold macular laser as the 95% confidence interval (–3.9 to –0.04 letters) lay wholly within both the upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in any of the secondary outcomes investigated with the exception of the number of laser treatments performed, which was slightly higher in the subthreshold micropulse laser group (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79; p = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no significant difference in the cost per quality-adjusted life-years between groups. Future work: A trial in people with ≥ 400 µm diabetic macular oedema comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy alone with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and macular laser applied at the time when central retinal subfield thickness has decreased to < 400 µm following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections would be of value because it could reduce the number of injections and, subsequently, costs and risks and inconvenience to patients. Limitations: The majority of participants enrolled had poorly controlled diabetes. Conclusions: Subthreshold micropulse laser was equivalent to standard threshold macular laser but required a slightly higher number of laser treatments. Trial registration: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2015-001940-12, ISRCTN17742985 and NCT03690050. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

    Randomized Phase IIb Study of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System Generation 2 for Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeat injections of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System (Brimo DDS) Generation 2 (Gen 2) containing 400-μg brimonidine in patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design: A phase IIb, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, sham-controlled, 30-month study (BEACON). Participants: Patients diagnosed with GA secondary to AMD and multifocal lesions with total area of &gt; 1.25 mm2 and ≤ 18 mm2 in the study eye. Methods: Enrolled patients were randomized to treatment with intravitreal injections of 400-μg Brimo DDS (n = 154) or sham procedure (n = 156) in the study eye every 3 months from day 1 to month 21. Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was GA lesion area change from baseline in the study eye, assessed with fundus autofluorescence imaging, at month 24. Results: The study was terminated early, at the time of the planned interim analysis, because of a slow GA progression rate (∼ 1.6 mm2/year) in the enrolled population. Least squares mean (standard error) GA area change from baseline at month 24 (primary endpoint) was 3.24 (0.13) mm2 with Brimo DDS (n = 84) versus 3.48 (0.13) mm2 with sham (n = 91), a reduction of 0.25 mm2 (7%) with Brimo DDS compared with sham (P = 0.150). At month 30, GA area change from baseline was 4.09 (0.15) mm2 with Brimo DDS (n = 49) versus 4.52 (0.15) mm2 with sham (n = 46), a reduction of 0.43 mm2 (10%) with Brimo DDS compared with sham (P = 0.033). Exploratory analysis showed numerically smaller loss over time in retinal sensitivity assessed with scotopic microperimetry with Brimo DDS than with sham (P = 0.053 at month 24). Treatment-related adverse events were usually related to the injection procedure. No implant accumulation was observed. Conclusions: Multiple intravitreal administrations of Brimo DDS (Gen 2) were well tolerated. The primary efficacy endpoint at 24 months was not met, but there was a numeric trend for reduction in GA progression at 24 months compared with sham treatment. The study was terminated early because of the lower-than-expected GA progression rate in the sham/control group. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references
    corecore