PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Rennie

Publications and source records attributed to D Rennie.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Gender differences in the occurrence of farm related injuries.

AIMS: To use national surveillance data in Canada to describe gender differences in the pattern of farm fatalities and severe injuries (those requiring hospitalisation). METHODS: Data from the Canadian Agricultural Injury Surveillance Program (CAISP) included farm work related fatalities from 1990 to 1996 for all Canadian provinces and abstracted information from hospital discharge records from eight provinces for the five fiscal years of 1990 to 1994. Gender differences in fatalities and injuries were examined by comparison of proportions and stratified by sex, injury class (machinery, non-machinery), and age group. RESULTS: Over the six year period of 1990 to 1996 there were approximately 11 times as many agriculture related fatalities for males compared to females (655 and 61, respectively). The most common machinery mechanisms of fatal injuries were roll-over (32%) for males and run-over (45%) for females. Agricultural machinery injuries requiring hospitalisation showed similar patterns, with proportionally more males over age 60 injured. The male:female ratio for non-machinery hospitalisations averaged 3:1. A greater percentage of males were struck by or caught against an object, whereas for females, animal related injuries predominated. CONCLUSIONS: Gender is an important factor to consider in the interpretation of fatal and non-fatal farm injuries. A greater number of males were injured, regardless of how the occurrence of injury was categorised, particularly when farm machinery was involved. As women increasingly participate in all aspects of agricultural production, there is a need to collect, interpret, and disseminate information on agricultural injury that is relevant for both sexes.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2003

[Reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy according to a standard method; the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD)].

The objective of the 'Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy' (STARD) initiative is to improve the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, so as to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalibility of its results. The group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies. This was used to draw up a list of potential items. During a consensus meeting, a group of researchers, medical journal editors, and members of professional organisations reduced this list to a usable checklist. Wherever possible, evidence from the literature was used to justify the decisions made. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which a list of 75 potential items was extracted. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist. A generic flow diagram was drawn up to provide guidance on the method for including patients, the order in which tests were to be conducted and the number of patients to undergo the test being evaluated, the reference standard, or both. A scientific publication can only be assessed when the reporting is both correct and complete. Use of the checklist and flow diagram will improve the quality of reports produced, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journal editors and other interested parties.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

AIM: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the general isability of its results. METHODS: The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a 2 day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2001

Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001.

Numerous examples of irresponsible authorship are associated with the rise in the number of authors per article and with the documented rise in authorship disputes. Multiple co-investigators have become the norm, and a result is that old concepts of authorship-which, when there was but one author, automatically linked credit with accountability-have eroded. The answer, in the tradition of scientific transparency, is for authors to decide together their individual contributions and disclose these to their readers. This disclosure is now required by many major general medical journals and has been adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors as the standard.

Authorship↗
PubMed2001

Assessment of upper-limb function and movement in children with cerebral palsy wearing lycra garments.

It has recently been suggested that lycra garments are helpful for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Twelve children, with athetosis, ataxia, and spasticity, were fitted with lycra garments (Kendall-Camp UK Ltd). Scores on the Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) scales were determined before and after wearing the garment for at least 6 hours a day for 6 weeks. Five children with motor problems representative of the whole group were investigated during a reach-and-grasp task by kinematic motion analysis; reflective markers were used with and without the garment. Carers were given a questionnaire concerning the practicalities of using the garments. All 12 children made improvements in at least one of the functional scales of the PEDI, and scores for the whole group showed significant gains (Wilcoxon chi2 test, self-help p<0.01; mobility p<0.5; social p<0.1). These changes were usually slight, although noticed by carers. Six children made gains of at least one scale of the caregiver assistance scores, two of the children showed losses (due to difficulties removing the garment for toileting), and four showed no change. Motion analysis indicated that (1) two children with athetosis had improved proximal stability in sitting and in smoothness of arm movements, (2) one child with ataxia had improved in proximal and distal stability, and (3) two children with spasticity had more jerky movements, although one improved in proximal stability. All children had problems in wearing the garments, including problems with toileting and incontinence of urine; the parents of only one child wanted to continue using it. Results suggest that the functional benefit of lycra garments for children with CP is mainly due to improvements in proximal stability but this should be weighed against the inconvenience and loss of independence.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities.

CONTEXT: Despite federal regulations on faculty conflicts of interest in federally funded research, academic-industry ties are common, and evidence exists that financial considerations bias the research record. Public scrutiny of these ties is increasing, especially in cases where researchers have financial interests in the corporate sponsors of their clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To review policies on conflict of interest at major biomedical research institutions in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and content analysis study conducted from August 1998 to February 2000. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 100 US institutions with the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1998 were initially sampled; policies from 89 institutions were available and included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process for disclosure, review, and management of conflicts of interest and specified management strategies or limitations, according to the institutions' faculty/staff conflict of interest policies. RESULTS: Content of the conflict of interest policies varied widely across institutions. Fifty-five percent of policies (n = 49) required disclosures from all faculty while 45% (n = 40) required them only from principal investigators or those conducting research. Nineteen percent of policies (n = 17) specified limits on faculty financial interests in corporate sponsors of research, 12% (n = 11) specified limits on permissible delays in publication, and 4% (n = 4) prohibited student involvement in work sponsored by a company in which the faculty mentor had a financial interest. CONCLUSIONS: Most policies on conflict of interest in our sample of major research institutions in the United States lack specificity about the kinds of relationships with industry that are permitted or prohibited. Wide variation in management of conflicts of interest among institutions may cause unnecessary confusion among potential industrial partners or competition among universities for corporate sponsorship that could erode academic standards. It is in the long-term interest of institutions to develop widely agreed-on, clear, specific, and credible policies on conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2000;284:2203-2208.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2000

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. EVIDENCE: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. CONSENSUS PROCESS: From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

Epidemiology↗
PubMed2000

Limited agreement between written and video asthma symptom questionnaires.

The prevalence of asthma remains difficult to determine with precision with no absolute or "gold" standard for diagnosis. A recently developed video questionnaire for epidemiological studies with less reliance on understanding written questions provides another tool for determining prevalence and severity of asthma. This report from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) examines the agreement between the ISAAC video questionnaires on respiratory symptoms and reported asthma. Between December 1993 and April 1995, 4952 children aged 13-14 years in two Canadian communities completed sequentially the ISAAC written and video questionnaires at school. The agreement between responses to the two questionnaires for reported wheeze ever, current wheeze, wheeze on exercise, and nocturnal wheeze (the latter three questions relating to symptoms in the last 12 months), and to any combination of the latter three questions was examined in the full sample and in those reporting diagnosed asthma, using concordance and kappa coefficients as measures of agreement. The prevalences of wheeze ever, current wheeze, wheeze on exercise, and nocturnal wheeze were significantly lower based on responses to the video questionnaire compared with the written questionnaire in both regions in the full sample and in those labeled as having asthma. Although concordance between video and written questionnaires always exceeded 60% and often exceeded 70% for related questions, agreement measured by the kappa statistic for each question was only fair to moderate (kappa = 0.22-0.51). We conclude that the video questionnaire yields lower reported prevalence rates for asthma symptoms, and that there is limited agreement between responses to the two questionnaires that is not explained by issues of language, culture, or literacy.

Asthma↗
PubMed2000

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. FINDINGS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with 'trial flow', study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1999

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. FINDINGS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Authorship↗