| 1. |
- de Rojas, I., et al.
(författare)
-
Common variants in Alzheimer’s disease and risk stratification by polygenic risk scores
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Genetic discoveries of Alzheimer’s disease are the drivers of our understanding, and together with polygenetic risk stratification can contribute towards planning of feasible and efficient preventive and curative clinical trials. We first perform a large genetic association study by merging all available case-control datasets and by-proxy study results (discovery n = 409,435 and validation size n = 58,190). Here, we add six variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk (near APP, CHRNE, PRKD3/NDUFAF7, PLCG2 and two exonic variants in the SHARPIN gene). Assessment of the polygenic risk score and stratifying by APOE reveal a 4 to 5.5 years difference in median age at onset of Alzheimer’s disease patients in APOE ɛ4 carriers. Because of this study, the underlying mechanisms of APP can be studied to refine the amyloid cascade and the polygenic risk score provides a tool to select individuals at high risk of Alzheimer’s disease. © 2021, The Author(s).
|
|
| 2. |
- Van Citters, Aricca D., et al.
(författare)
-
Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JNCI Cancer Spectrum. - : Oxford University Press. - 2515-5091. ; 6:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundDespite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS.MethodsA modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities.ResultsVoting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients).ConclusionsThe person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ogrinc, Greg, et al.
(författare)
-
SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) : Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process
- 2016
-
Ingår i: BMJ Quality and Safety. - : BMJ. - 2044-5415 .- 2044-5423. ; 25:12, s. 986-992
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org). © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ogrinc, Greg, et al.
(författare)
-
Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0 : revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Surgical Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-4804 .- 1095-8673. ; 200:2, s. 676-682
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).
|
|
