Search

Background: In an effort to overcome quality and cost constraints inherent in population-based research, diverse data sources are increasingly being combined. In this paper, we describe the performance of a Medicare claims-based incident cancer identification algorithm in comparison with observational cohort data from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS)., Methods: NHS-Medicare linked participants' claims data were analyzed using 4 versions of a cancer identification algorithm across 3 cancer sites (breast, colorectal, and lung). The algorithms evaluated included an update of the original Setoguchi algorithm, and 3 other versions that differed in the data used for prevalent cancer exclusions., Results: The algorithm that yielded the highest positive predictive value (PPV) (0.52-0.82) and κ statistic (0.62-0.87) in identifying incident cancer cases utilized both Medicare claims and observational cohort data (NHS) to remove prevalent cases. The algorithm that only used NHS data to inform the removal of prevalent cancer cases performed nearly equivalently in statistical performance (PPV, 0.50-0.79; κ, 0.61-0.85), whereas the version that used only claims to inform the removal of prevalent cancer cases performed substantially worse (PPV, 0.42-0.60; κ, 0.54-0.70), in comparison with the dual data source-informed algorithm., Conclusions: Our findings suggest claims-based algorithms identify incident cancer with variable reliability when measured against an observational cohort study reference standard. Self-reported baseline information available in cohort studies is more effective in removing prevalent cancer cases than are claims data algorithms. Use of claims-based algorithms should be tailored to the research question at hand and the nature of available observational cohort data.

Although research on effective teaching methods exists, the application of this information in prehospital medical education is limited. Applying lessons from the realms of cognitive psychology and neuroscience, prehospital educators can enhance their ability to teach. One such concept is the theory of cognitive load. Understanding this theory can reduce the mental strain placed on learners and allow educators to best accomplish long-term learning success, defined as "far transfer" of material to novel contexts. Thus, we propose 5 concise strategies gleaned from cognitive science literature: Tell a story, Time, Technical elements, Think novelly, and Testing and recall (referred to as the "5 T's"). Each strategy is grounded in research and applicable to medical education. Increased educator awareness and use of these strategies garners the potential to transform prehospital medical education., (Copyright © 2017 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Marginal integrity is a very important element in evaluating a restoration; however, there is no agreement in definition of a clinically acceptable margin. The purpose of this investigation was to examine margin acceptability using an explorer versus the actual marginal gap widths at four locations on uncemented crowns on three extracted teeth using both predoctoral students and prosthodontists as evaluators., Materials and Methods: The crown margin evaluation used 16 surfaces of four crowns fitting to three extracted caries-free teeth fitted into a dentiform. The teeth (nos. 14, 20, and 29) were prepared for a full cast (gold) crown using a chamfer finish line configuration, with some margins supragingival and others subgingival. After final impressions and working casts were made, die spacer was applied to the marginal area of the die before waxing to vary the marginal opening. The dentiform was placed in a mannequin in a supine position. Predoctoral students (N = 10) and prosthodontists (N = 9) evaluated each axial surface of each crown in the zone along the margin with an explorer and rated each surface as either "clinically acceptable" or "unacceptable." After casting, the axial marginal openings were measured with Image Pro Software using a digital microscopic image of the surface. Each participant repeated the margin evaluations 6 months later., Results: Upon casting, marginal gaps ranged from 40 microm to 615 microm. The proportions of prosthodontists and of predoctoral students rating a given surface as "clinically unacceptable" were highly correlated (Spearman rank correlation = 0.81, p= 0.0001). The prosthodontists did not provide more or fewer ratings of clinical acceptability than the students, although kappa results indicated that the prosthodontists might be more consistent among themselves than the student raters. Upon re-evaluation, both groups rated between one and six of the surfaces differently than they had previously: the median number of inconsistencies was 1 for prosthodontists and 3 for predoctoral students. The prosthodontists tended to have fewer inconsistencies than the predoctoral students (0.05 < p < 0.10 Wilcoxon rank sum test), but this was not statistically significant., Conclusion: The data provided evidence that those surfaces associated with greater margin gaps tended to have a greater proportion of ratings of "clinically unacceptable." The proportion of prosthodontists and predoctoral students rating a margin "clinically unacceptable" were highly correlated. Prosthodontists tended to have fewer inconsistencies than predoctoral students, but that difference was not statistically significant.

Objective: To investigate the short-term safety and efficacy of risperidone in the treatment of children and adolescents with pervasive developmental disorders., Method: This was a 12-week, prospective, systematic, open-label trial that included 18 subjects (15 boys and 3 girls) with a mean age of 10.2 +/- 3.7 years. The sample included 11 subjects with autistic disorder, 3 with Asperger's disorder, 1 with childhood disintegrative disorder, and 3 with pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. Fourteen subjects had comorbid mental retardation. Behavioral ratings were obtained during two baseline visits and again after 12 weeks of risperidone treatment., Results: The optimal dose of risperidone for the 18 subjects was 1.8 +/- 1.0 mg/day. On the basis of the global improvement item of the Clinical Global Impression Scale, 12 of 18 subjects were considered responders. Significant improvement was seen in measures of interfering repetitive behavior, aggression and impulsivity, and some elements of impaired social relatedness. The most common side effect was weight gain (range 10 to 35 lb)., Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that risperidone may be effective for improving interfering behavioral symptoms in some children and adolescents with pervasive developmental disorders. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are needed before definitive statements of safety and efficacy can be made.