File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Appraising published claims about drug treatment to implement best therapy in clinical practice

TitleAppraising published claims about drug treatment to implement best therapy in clinical practice
Authors
KeywordsClinical trials
Data interpretation, statistical
Drug evaluation
Meta-analysis
Randomized controlled trials
Issue Date1998
PublisherHong Kong Medical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hk
Citation
Hong Kong Medical Journal, 1998, v. 4 n. 2, p. 158-168 How to Cite?
AbstractThe validity and applicability of publications about individual clinical studies and systematic overviews regarding interventions with drugs need to be established and perceived in quantitative terms to implement evidence-based, best current therapy. This requires an understanding of study design, various types of bias, intention to treat analysis, clinical versus statistical significance, and other considerations. The quantitative appreciation of drug effects may be facilitated by arranging results from case-control studies, cohort studies, and controlled trials in suitable contingency tables. Relative risks, relative risk reductions, odds ratios, and absolute risk reductions (in a given period of time), as well as corresponding numbers needing treatment (to prevent one event) may then be calculated. Systematic overviews of multiple clinical trials and assessment of their combined quantitative significance (meta-analyses) were developed to enhance statistical power, to enhance the level of confidence about small differences in effect, and to reconcile conflicting claims. The results of a meta-analysis are usually represented by so-called 'forest plots' of point estimates (corresponding to medians) and their respective confidence intervals, as well as a combined point estimate and confidence interval. Heterogeneity (important differences between findings from individual trials is a special problem incurred with this relatively new tool. The meta-analysis are also specially prone to other special sources of bias' a greater likelihood that trials reporting 'favourable' effects are published, covert duplicate inclusion of results from the same patients, and non-blinded meta-analysers
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/45346
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.887
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.279

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKumana, CRen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLauder, IJen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2007-10-30T06:23:25Z-
dc.date.available2007-10-30T06:23:25Z-
dc.date.issued1998en_HK
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Medical Journal, 1998, v. 4 n. 2, p. 158-168en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1024-2708en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/45346-
dc.description.abstractThe validity and applicability of publications about individual clinical studies and systematic overviews regarding interventions with drugs need to be established and perceived in quantitative terms to implement evidence-based, best current therapy. This requires an understanding of study design, various types of bias, intention to treat analysis, clinical versus statistical significance, and other considerations. The quantitative appreciation of drug effects may be facilitated by arranging results from case-control studies, cohort studies, and controlled trials in suitable contingency tables. Relative risks, relative risk reductions, odds ratios, and absolute risk reductions (in a given period of time), as well as corresponding numbers needing treatment (to prevent one event) may then be calculated. Systematic overviews of multiple clinical trials and assessment of their combined quantitative significance (meta-analyses) were developed to enhance statistical power, to enhance the level of confidence about small differences in effect, and to reconcile conflicting claims. The results of a meta-analysis are usually represented by so-called 'forest plots' of point estimates (corresponding to medians) and their respective confidence intervals, as well as a combined point estimate and confidence interval. Heterogeneity (important differences between findings from individual trials is a special problem incurred with this relatively new tool. The meta-analysis are also specially prone to other special sources of bias' a greater likelihood that trials reporting 'favourable' effects are published, covert duplicate inclusion of results from the same patients, and non-blinded meta-analysersen_HK
dc.format.extent972423 bytes-
dc.format.extent9488 bytes-
dc.format.extent3923 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain-
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherHong Kong Medical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hken_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectClinical trialsen_HK
dc.subjectData interpretation, statisticalen_HK
dc.subjectDrug evaluationen_HK
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen_HK
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialsen_HK
dc.titleAppraising published claims about drug treatment to implement best therapy in clinical practiceen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1024-2708&volume=4&issue=2&spage=158&epage=168&date=1998&atitle=Appraising+published+claims+about+drug+treatment+to+implement+best+therapy+in+clinical+practiceen_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid11832568en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros33402-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats