PubMed · 15083054
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
David C Kim, Gary F Wingate, Paul S Kim. 2004-04-01. Lieposuction.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000110864.02624.cf
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Although medically underserved groups bear a heavy burden of cancer disease and governmental agencies have required inclusion of minorities and women in cancer clinical trials since 1993, many of these groups are underrepresented in cancer prevention or treatment clinical trials. To assess and enhance recruitment of underrepresented populations into cancer-related clinical trials, investigators and governmental agencies need consistent measurement approaches for recruitment that can be applied to diverse settings where trials are conducted. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate what measurement approaches were used to evaluate the success of recruitment of underrepresented groups into cancer prevention or treatment trials, and whether these recruitment goals were stated a priori. Only two articles reported an a priori recruitment goal. The recruitment measurement approaches varied considerably, with no consistent standard, especially for individual trials. By using the empiric evidence from this review in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, we constructed a framework for choosing consistent a priori recruitment goals for underrepresented groups based on the research question and study location. Using consistent measurement approaches for underrepresented groups will improve comparability of recruitment strategies across trials, improve equity in distribution of benefits and burdens of cancer-related clinical trials, and may improve applicability of trial results to multiple populations.
Objective. There are two objectives of this study. The first is to understand how practitioners of differing backgrounds approach the process of interpreting intra-operative neurophysiologic monitoring. The second is to understand whether the experience and educational background of practitioners influences the degree of agreement in their interpretations. Methods. A survey was distributed at the 2004 American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring meeting. A total of 92 responses were obtained. The effect that various characteristics of the respondents including their experience, degree, certification and role in monitoring had on a number of outcome measures was assessed. These outcome measures included the probability that the surgeon responded to a warning, the chance that the patient would wake without a deficit after a warning was delivered, and the degree to which respondents agreed on interpretations of SSEP traces. Results. It was found that surgeons were more likely to respond to warnings issued by a monitrist with a higher degree of experience. Respondents with higher levels of experience, certification level, and degree level were more likely to agree on interpretations of evoked potential tracings. Overall, however, the degree of agreement between respondents was at most moderate. Respondents with higher levels of experience and training were more likely to provide correct answers to a subset of traces that were designed to reflect a classic pattern of change. Conclusions. This study indicates the need for additional studies on the criteria for providing warnings during IOM and the characteristics of monitrists that influence their interpretations.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.