Article

CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.

Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
International Journal of Surgery (London, England) (Impact Factor: 1.65). 01/2011; 9(8):672-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.

2 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A decade ago, the Society of Prevention Research (SPR) endorsed a set of standards for evidence related to research on prevention interventions. These standards (Flay et al., Prevention Science 6:151-175, 2005) were intended in part to increase consistency in reviews of prevention research that often generated disparate lists of effective interventions due to the application of different standards for what was considered to be necessary to demonstrate effectiveness. In 2013, SPR's Board of Directors decided that the field has progressed sufficiently to warrant a review and, if necessary, publication of "the next generation" of standards of evidence. The Board convened a committee to review and update the standards. This article reports on the results of this committee's deliberations, summarizing changes made to the earlier standards and explaining the rationale for each change. The SPR Board of Directors endorses "The Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research in Prevention Science: Next Generation."
    Prevention Science 04/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11121-015-0555-x · 2.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives This study was designed to test the effect of increased certainty of punishment on reported crime levels in CCTV target areas of Newark, NJ. The experimental strategy was designed for the purpose of overcoming specific surveillance barriers that minimize the effectiveness of CCTV, namely high camera-to-operator ratios and the differential response policy of police dispatch. An additional camera operator was deployed to monitor specific CCTV cameras, with two patrol cars dedicated to exclusively responding to incidents of concern detected on the experimental cameras. Methods A randomized controlled trial was implemented in the analysis. A randomized block design was used to assign each of the 38 CCTV schemes to either a treatment or control group. Schemes were grouped into pairs based upon their levels of three types of calls for service: violent crime, social disorder, and narcotics activity. Negative binomial regression models tested the effect that assignment to the treatment group had on levels of the aforementioned crime categories. Results The experimental strategy was associated with significant reductions of violent crime and social disorder in the treatment areas relative to the control areas. Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) and Total Net Effect (TNE) values suggest that the number of crime incidents prevented was sizable in numerous instances. The experiment had much less of an effect on narcotics activity. Conclusions Overall, the findings support the hypothesis that the integration of CCTV with proactive police activity generates a crime control benefit greater than what research suggests is achievable via “stand-alone” camera deployment, particularly in the case of street-level crime.
    Journal of Experimental Criminology 03/2015; 11(1):43-69. · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared the effects of three silver dressing combinations on small to medium size acute partial thickness burns in children, focusing on re-epithelialization time, pain and distress during dressing changes. Children (0-15 years) with clean, ≤10% total body surface area (TBSA) partial thickness burns who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Children received either (1) Acticoat™; (2) Acticoat™ with Mepitel™; or (3) Mepilex Ag™ dressings. Measures of burn re-epithelialization, pain, and distress were recorded at dressing changes every 3-5 days until full re-epithelialization occurred. One hundred and three children were recruited with 96 children included for analysis. No infections were detected for the course of the study. When adjusted for burn depth, Acticoat™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 40% (IRR=1.40; 95% CI: 1.14-1.73, p<0.01) and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 33% (IRR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.63, p≤0.01) when compared to Mepilex Ag™. Expected FLACC scores in the Mepilex Ag™ group were 32% lower at dressing removal (p=0.01) and 37% lower at new dressing application (p=0.04); and scores in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group were 23% lower at dressing removal (p=0.04) and 40% lower at new dressing application (p<0.01), in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. Expected Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS-P) scores were 25% lower in the Mepilex Ag™ group at dressing removal (p=0.04) and 34% lower in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group (p=0.02) at new dressing application in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. There was no significant difference between the Mepilex Ag™ and the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ groups at all timepoints and with any pain measure. Mepilex Ag™ is an effective silver dressing, in terms of accelerated wound re-epithelialization time (compared to Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™) and decreased pain during dressing changes (compared to Acticoat™), for clean, <10% TBSA partial thickness burns in children. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.
    Burns: journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 02/2015; 41(5). DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2014.11.005 · 1.84 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
5 Downloads
Available from