PubMed · 8114843
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M A Schneiderman. 1994-03-24. More on torturing data.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8114843/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The study compares frequencies of birth defects between immigrant groups and the rest of the Norwegian population in Norway and estimates the influence of consanguinity and socioeconomic factors on these frequencies. The authors studied all 1.56 million births in Norway from 1967 to 1993. Of these, 7,494 children had two Pakistani parents, 84,688 had one Norwegian and one immigrant parent, and 25,891 had two immigrant parents from countries other than Pakistan. The risk of birth defects relative to the Norwegian group was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.92-1.03) in the group with one foreign and one Norwegian parent, 1.39 (95% confidence interval 1.22-1.60) in the group with two Pakistani parents, and 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.95-1.14) in the group with two parents from other foreign countries; 0.1% of the Norwegian and 30.1% of the Pakistani children had parents who were first cousins. There was no difference in risk between children of nonconsanguineous Pakistani parents and the other groups. The relative risk of birth defects among children whose parents were first cousins was about 2 in all groups. Among the Pakistani, 28% of all birth defects could be attributed to consanguinity. Low paternal educational level was associated with a slightly increased risk in the Norwegian group, while independent effects of parental educational levels were not found in any other groups.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the measurement properties over time of five generic health status assessment techniques. METHODS: Five health status measures were completed on two occasions by a sample of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. They included the SF-36, Nottingham Health Profile, Health Status Section of the Ontario Health Survey (OHS), Duke Health Profile, the Sickness Impact Profile and a self-report of change in health between tests. SETTING: Subjects were accrued from a work site (within one week of injury) (n = 53), physiotherapy clinics (four weeks after injury), (n = 34), and a tertiary level rehabilitation center (more than four weeks after injury) (n = 40). ANALYSIS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) derived from nonparametric one-way analysis of variance were used for test-retest reliability in those who had not changed (n = 49). Various responsiveness statistics were used to evaluate responsiveness in those who claimed they had a positive change in health (n = 45) and in those who would have been expected to have a positive change (n = 79). RESULTS: Of the 127 subjects recruited, 114 completed both questionnaires (89.8%). In the subjects who reported no change in health, analysis of targeted dimensions (overall scores, physical function, and pain) demonstrated acceptable to excellent test-retest reliability in all but the Duke Health Profile. In subjects with change in health, the SF-36 was the most responsive measure (moderate to large effect sizes [0.55-0.97] and standardized response means ranging between 0.81 and 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the SF-36 was the most appropriate questionnaire to measure health changes in the population studied. The selection of a health status measure must be context-specific, taking into account the purpose and population of the planned research.