| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Trainer, P J, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment of acromegaly with the growth hormone-receptor antagonist pegvisomant.
- 2000
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 342:16, s. 1171-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with acromegaly are currently treated with surgery, radiation therapy, and drugs to reduce hypersecretion of growth hormone, but the treatments may be ineffective and have adverse effects. Pegvisomant is a genetically engineered growth hormone-receptor antagonist that blocks the action of growth hormone.We conducted a 12-week, randomized, double-blind study of three daily doses of pegvisomant (10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg) and placebo, given subcutaneously, in 112 patients with acromegaly.The mean (+/-SD) serum concentration of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) decreased from base line by 4.0+/-16.8 percent in the placebo group, 26.7+/-27.9 percent in the group that received 10 mg of pegvisomant per day, 50.1+/-26.7 percent in the group that received 15 mg of pegvisomant per day, and 62.5+/-21.3 percent in the group that received 20 mg of pegvisomant per day (P<0.001 for the comparison of each pegvisomant group with placebo), and the concentrations became normal in 10 percent, 54 percent, 81 percent, and 89 percent of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for each comparison with placebo). Among patients treated with 15 mg or 20 mg of pegvisomant per day, there were significant decreases in ring size, soft-tissue swelling, the degree of excessive perspiration, and fatigue. The score fortotal symptoms and signs of acromegaly decreased significantly in all groups receiving pegvisomant (P< or =0.05). The incidence of adverse effects was similar in all groups.On the basis of these preliminary results, treatment of patients who have acromegaly with a growth hormone-receptor antagonist results in a reduction in serum IGF-I concentrations and in clinical improvement.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wasserman, D, et al.
(författare)
-
Compulsory admissions of patients with mental disorders: State of the art on ethical and legislative aspects in 40 European countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists. - : Royal College of Psychiatrists. - 1778-3585. ; 63:1, s. e82-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background.Compulsory admission procedures of patients with mental disorders vary between countries in Europe. The Ethics Committee of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) launched a survey on involuntary admission procedures of patients with mental disorders in 40 countries to gather information from all National Psychiatric Associations that are members of the EPA to develop recommendations for improving involuntary admission processes and promote voluntary care.Methods.The survey focused on legislation of involuntary admissions and key actors involved in the admission procedure as well as most common reasons for involuntary admissions.Results.We analyzed the survey categorical data in themes, which highlight that both medical and legal actors are involved in involuntary admission procedures.Conclusions.We conclude that legal reasons for compulsory admission should be reworded in order to remove stigmatization of the patient, that raising awareness about involuntary admission procedures and patient rights with both patients and family advocacy groups is paramount, that communication about procedures should be widely available in lay-language for the general population, and that training sessions and guidance should be available for legal and medical practitioners. Finally, people working in the field need to be constantly aware about the ethical challenges surrounding compulsory admissions.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Schweinsberg, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Same data, different conclusions : Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. - : Elsevier BV. - 0749-5978 .- 1095-9920. ; 165, s. 228-249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists' gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for orga-nizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
|
|
