How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
RealTime Prescription Monitoring was to track only opioid use at its inception, but is being extended to capture diazepam scripts. Despite the UK process underway to restrict pregabalin as S3, there is no intent to control its usage in Australia.
Cross-cultural investigation of fibromyalgia to identify epidemiology factors. The hypothesis is that it's worse to be living in Australia than New Zealand for aggravation of fibromyalgia symptoms. The study proposes a controlled synthesis of a pilot grounded in the data of social networking reports, intersecting anthropology with pathophysiology t...
The hypothesis is that the presence of bruxism observed during dental checkups is a marker for fibromyalgia and vital screening for this disease allows better outcomes than detection through general medical practice. Dental Health Services Victoria i policy supports linking of oral health to chronic disease : "Well-designed large-scale longitudinal...
Systematic Review GRADE checks for bias don't codify failures in trial quality, such as gross errors. This leaves decisions to include dubious data to subjective opinion. Observational STROBE or RCT CONSORT tools don't accommodate for undisclosed funding, ie where the PI had declared conflicted interest elsewhere than in the article considered.
Australia has no Office of Research Integrity, and Bretag's Handbook of Academic Integrity explains the weaknesses of governance framework in this country. I have a case series of 3 violations of our Motherhood statements eg Helsinki, E72, Belmont Report etc. Each institution's HREC won't correspond, nor will the publishing editors. How can these investigations be recounted, while protecting privacy of individuals whose guilt cannot be assured - for want of a forum to raise allegations?
In meta-analysis 3RCTs, unlucky random baseline(+SD) & end(+SD) PRO psychometric scores. Cochrane h'book ref 17.7 discourages using means difference? Non-significant result when outcome measure is used alone, significant benefit shown if the change in measure is used, due to unlucky randomisation (all three had worse baseline for treatment arm thus reducing the end score - despite significant improvement). H'book ref 184.108.40.206 advises imputing an SD for the change but worst case assumptions for correlation still just approximate the average of baseline/end SDs.
This issue also sent to Gotzsche and Glasziou, as benefit is 'obvious', but conclusion is negative!