PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15729887

[Are tuberculosis advisory committees well-functioning?].

Kunihiko Ito·Noriko Kobayashi·Yoko Nagata·Takashi Yoshiyama·Masako Wada·Hideo Ogata
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the function status of TB advisory committee to assess treatments of tuberculosis. OBJECT AND METHOD: Estimate by questionnaire sheets to public health nurses attending to seminars on tuberculosis at Research Institute of Tuberculosis. RESULT: 137 answers are available for analysis. Of these, 57 (41.6%) TB advisory committees are estimated not to assess treatments of tuberculosis at all and/or to assess treatments without necessary informations on drug sensitivity in more than around half of the cases. In 13 (16.3%) committees of the other 80, many cases are in fact self-assessed. Number of committees that are estimated to functioning well is only 44 (32.1%). CONCLUSION: Many TB advisory committees are estimated to be malfunctioning from the stand point of assessments of treatment. As TB advisory committee is one of key agency to control drug-resistant tuberculosis, its reform and revitalization are urgently needed.

Explore related subjects

Advisory CommitteesJapanPublic Health NursingSurveys and QuestionnairesTuberculosisEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kunihiko Ito, Noriko Kobayashi, Yoko Nagata, Takashi Yoshiyama, Masako Wada, Hideo Ogata. 2004. [Are tuberculosis advisory committees well-functioning?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15729887/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2022

The International Consensus Classification of Mature Lymphoid Neoplasms: a report from the Clinical Advisory Committee.

Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2006

Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: In January 2003, STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) were published in a number of journals, to improve the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies. We designed a study to investigate the inter-assessment reproducibility, and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the items in the STARD statement. METHODS: Thirty-two diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2000 in medical journals with an impact factor of at least 4 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of reporting of these studies using the 25 items of the STARD statement. A consensus evaluation was obtained by discussing and resolving disagreements between reviewers. Almost two years later, the same studies were evaluated by the same reviewers. For each item, percentages agreement and Cohen's kappa between first and second consensus assessments (inter-assessment) were calculated. Intraclass Correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate its reliability. RESULTS: The overall inter-assessment agreement for all items of the STARD statement was 85% (Cohen's kappa 0.70) and varied from 63% to 100% for individual items. The largest differences between the two assessments were found for the reporting of the rationale of the reference standard (kappa 0.37), number of included participants that underwent tests (kappa 0.28), distribution of the severity of the disease (kappa 0.23), a cross tabulation of the results of the index test by the results of the reference standard (kappa 0.33) and how indeterminate results, missing data and outliers were handled (kappa 0.25). Within and between reviewers, also large differences were observed for these items. The inter-assessment reliability of the STARD checklist was satisfactory (ICC = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89]). CONCLUSION: Although the overall reproducibility of the quality of reporting on diagnostic accuracy studies using the STARD statement was found to be good, substantial disagreements were found for specific items. These disagreements were not so much caused by differences in interpretation of the items by the reviewers but rather by difficulties in assessing the reporting of these items due to lack of clarity within the articles. Including a flow diagram in all reports on diagnostic accuracy studies would be very helpful in reducing confusion between readers and among reviewers.

Advisory Committees↗