PubMed · 15128090
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
JoAnne D Whitney. Reading and using systematic reviews.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200401000-00003
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Adjustment for baseline variables in a randomized trial can increase power to detect a treatment effect. However, when baseline data are partly missing, analysis of complete cases is inefficient. We consider various possible improvements in the case of normally distributed baseline and outcome variables. Joint modelling of baseline and outcome is the most efficient method. Mean imputation is an excellent alternative, subject to three conditions. Firstly, if baseline and outcome are correlated more than about 0.6 then weighting should be used to allow for the greater information from complete cases. Secondly, imputation should be carried out in a deterministic way, using other baseline variables if possible, but not using randomized arm or outcome. Thirdly, if baselines are not missing completely at random, then a dummy variable for missingness should be included as a covariate (the missing indicator method). The methods are illustrated in a randomized trial in community psychiatry.
When the health sector variable whose inequality is being investigated is binary, the minimum and maximum possible values of the concentration index are equal to micro-1 and 1-micro, respectively, where micro is the mean of the variable in question. Thus as the mean increases, the range of the possible values of the concentration index shrinks, tending to zero as the mean tends to one and the concentration index tends to zero. Examples are presented on levels of and inequalities in immunization across 41 developing countries, and on changes in coverage and inequalities in selected countries.
PURPOSE: The Goldmann applanation technique established itself as gold standard for clinical intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. But the device measures by corneal touch and presupposes corneal conditions within a normal range. So precise determination of IOP is crucial in corneal disorders and after corneal surgery. This pilot study presents tonometry data of normal and postkeratoplasty eyes measured transpalpebrally with a digital tonometer in comparison to Goldmann tonometry. METHOD: The TGDc-01 tonometer is based on a ballistic principle of measurement. IOP was measured in 50 healthy eyes (group 1) and 40 eyes after penetrating keratoplasty (group 2) first by the TGDc-01 and after 3 minutes by Goldmann tonometry (Haag-Streit). Subjective refraction, keratometry and ultrasonic pachymetry were performed in all eyes. The IOP measurements in the postkeratoplasty eyes were done when corneal epithelium was fully closed and only a medium suture edema could be observed. RESULTS: The Pearson's product-moment correlation was r=0,46 for group 1 and 0,65 for group 2. Using the concordance correlation coefficient the value showed a reproducibility index of r(c)=0,44 in group 1 and r(c)=0,60 in group 2. Following the Bland-Altman-analysis 58% of the cases in group 1 had a difference between the two instruments of maximum 3 mmHg. In group 2, 53,5% of the eyes showed an absolute difference between Goldmann and TDGc-01 of 3 mmHg or less. CONCLUSION: A transpalpebral measurement technique-avoiding corneal contact-seems to be an alternative choice in patients with corneal pathologies and after corneal surgery. The TGDc-01 tonometer provided mostly similar results compared to the Goldmann device, but with fluctuations. Keeping the deviations between the two methods in mind we recommend, however, the use of the transpalpebral approach only in combination with other techniques (palpation, indentation) to obtain enough reliability of IOP information in problem eyes.