How to conduct valid social science research using MTurk – a checklist

The use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for social science research has increased exponentially in recent years. Although there is great excitement about the practical and logistical benefits, there is justifiable skepticism about the validity of research using data collected with MTurk. In this post, Herman Aguinis, Isabel Villamor, and Ravi S. Ramani provide 10 actionable best-practice recommendations and a checklist that can serve as a catalyst for more robust, reproducible, and trustworthy MTurk-based research

Noninvasive Assessment of Acute Dyspnea in the ED

Altres ajuts: This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health [Grants HL67181; and HL073198].We compared the ability of noninvasive measurements of cardiac output (CO) and thoracic fluid content (TFC) and their change in response to orthostatic challenges to diagnose acute decompensate heart failure (ADHF) from non-ADHF causes of acute dyspnea in patients in the ED. Forty-five patients > 44 years old presenting in the ED with dyspnea were studied. CO and TFC were monitored with a NICOM bioreactance device. CO and TFC were measured continuously while each patient was sitting, supine, and during a passive leg-raising maneuver (3 min each); the maximal values during each maneuver were reported. Orthostatic challenges were repeated 2 h into treatment. One patient was excluded because of intolerance to the supine position. Diagnoses obtained with the hemodynamic measurements were compared with ED diagnoses and with two expert physicians by chart review (used as gold standard diagnosis); both groups were blinded to CO and TFC values. Patient's treatment, ED disposition, hospital length of stay, and subjective dyspnea (Borg scale) were also recorded. Sixteen of 44 patients received a diagnosis of ADHF and 28 received a diagnosis of non-ADHF by the experts. Baseline TFC was higher in patients with ADHF (P =.001). Fifteen patients were treated for ADHF, and their Borg scale values decreased at 2 h (P <.05). TFC threshold of 78.8 had a receiver operator characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (76% sensitivity, 71% specificity) for ADHF. Both ADHF and non-ADHF groups were similar in their increased CO from baseline to PLR and supine. Pre- and posttreatment measurements were similar. Baseline TFC can discriminate patients with ADHF from non-ADHF dyspnea in the ED

Primary cerebello-pontine angle melanoma: a case report

Intra-cranial melanomas are commonly metastatic from primary melanoma elsewhere in the body. The primary occurrence of a melanoma in the brain parenchyma is rare. We report a case of 38 year aged woman who presented with deviation of left eye and headache. On imaging, a space occupying lesion was found in the left Cerebello-pontine angle and a preoperative diagnosis of meningioma was made. She underwent left retro-mastoid sub-occipital craniectomy and excision of a black vascular tumor. Histopathological examination revealed a melanoma which was confirmed with Immunohistochemical assay. Search for dermal, mucous and ocular lesions were negative. She received adjuvant radiation to the post- operative tumor bed to 5400cGy in 30 fractions using Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy technique along with concurrent Temozolomide. She tolerated the treatment well and is symptom free 12 months after treatment. Primary Melanomas are rare lesions of the Cerebello-pontine angle and its radiological features, evaluation and management have been discussed.-------------------Cite this article as: Ponni A, Jagannatha A, Gururajachar J, Harjani R, Koushik K, Subramanian N, Sowmya R, Varma R. Primary cerebello-pontine angle melanoma: a case report. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(3):020315. DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0203.1

The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Hindia Belanda 1930 / J. Stroomberg ; penerjemah : Heri Apriyono ; editor : Bagus Pradana

International audienceLes auteurs examinent la réponse du système de brevets indien aux accords ADPIC (accords sur les droits de propriété intellectuelle liés au commerce) et analysent brièvement les tendances des publications de brevets dans le secteur de l'industrie biopharmaceutique. Ils traitent de trois questions centrales : quels sont les récents changements intervenus dans le système de brevets indien en réponse aux accords ADPIC ? La signature des accords ADPIC a-t-elle eu un impact sur la création de nouvelles technologies ou sur les dépôts de brevets dans l'industrie pharmaceutique indienne ? Quelles seront les autres conséquences des ADPIC pour les entreprises indiennes et les consommateurs

Defining, measuring, and rewarding scholarly impact: mind the level of analysis

We address the grossly incorrect inferences that result from using journal impact factor (JIF) as a proxy to assess individual researcher and article scholarly impact. This invalid practice occurs because of confusion about the definition and measurement of impact at different levels of analysis. Specifically, JIF is a journal-level measure of impact, computed by aggregating citations of individual articles (i.e., upward effect), and is therefore inappropriate when measuring impact at lower levels of analysis, such as that of individual researchers, or of individual articles published in a particular journal (i.e., downward effect). We illustrate the severity of the errors that occur when using JIF to evaluate individual scholarly impact, and advocate for an immediate moratorium on the exclusive use of JIF and other journal-level (i.e., higher level of analysis) measures when assessing the impact of individual researchers and individual articles (i.e., lower level of analysis). Given the importance and interest in assessing the scholarly impact of researchers and articles, we delineate level-appropriate and readily available measures