3 rows where funder_names contains "National Institute for Health Research" sorted by award_numbers

View and edit SQL

Suggested facets: created (date), title (array), subject (array), ISSN (array), orcids (array), names (array), award_numbers (array), funder_dois (array)

funder_names (array)

Link rowid title DOI URL created subject references-count is-referenced-by-count ISSN container-title abstract author_number orcids names award_numbers ▼ funder_names funder_dois
32 ["Medication-related harm in older adults following hospital discharge: development and validation of a prediction tool"] 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009587 2019-09-16T21:15:37Z [] 94 2 ["2044-5415", "2044-5423"] BMJ Quality & Safety <jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To develop and validate a tool to predict the risk of an older adult experiencing medication-related harm (MRH) requiring healthcare use following hospital discharge.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design, setting, participants</jats:title><jats:p>Multicentre, prospective cohort study recruiting older adults (≥65 years) discharged from five UK teaching hospitals between 2013 and 2015.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Primary outcome measure</jats:title><jats:p>Participants were followed up for 8 weeks in the community by senior pharmacists to identify MRH (adverse drug reactions, harm from non-adherence, harm from medication error). Three data sources provided MRH and healthcare use information: hospital readmissions, primary care use, participant telephone interview. Candidate variables for prognostic modelling were selected using two systematic reviews, the views of patients with MRH and an expert panel of clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination, based on the Akaike Information Criterion, was used to develop the PRIME tool. The tool was internally validated.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>1116 out of 1280 recruited participants completed follow-up (87%). Uncertain MRH cases (‘possible’ and ‘probable’) were excluded, leaving a tool derivation cohort of 818. 119 (15%) participants experienced ‘definite’ MRH requiring healthcare use and 699 participants did not. Modelling resulted in a prediction tool with eight variables measured at hospital discharge: age, gender, antiplatelet drug, sodium level, antidiabetic drug, past adverse drug reaction, number of medicines, living alone. The tool’s discrimination C-statistic was 0.69 (0.66 after validation) and showed good calibration. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the potential value of the tool to guide clinical decision making compared with alternative approaches.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:ti… 10 ["http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-3717"] ["Nikesh Parekh", "Khalid Ali", "John Graham Davies", "Jennifer M Stevenson", "Winston Banya", "Stephen Nyangoma", "Rebekah Schiff", "Tischa van der Cammen", "Jatinder Harchowal", "Chakravarthi Rajkumar"] ["PB-PG-0711-25094"] ["National Institute for Health Research"] ["10.13039/501100000272"]
99 ["Randomised evaluation of government health programmes does present a challenge to standard research ethics frameworks"] 10.1136/medethics-2019-106003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106003 2019-12-18T22:15:26Z ["Health Policy", "Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)", "Issues, ethics and legal aspects", "Health(social science)"] 5 0 ["0306-6800", "1473-4257"] Journal of Medical Ethics <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In a recent issue of Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), we discussed the ethical review of evaluations of interventions that would occur whether or not the evaluation was taking place. We concluded that standard research ethics frameworks including the Ottawa Statement, which requires justification for all aspects of an intervention and its roll-out, were a poor guide in this area. We proposed that a consideration of researcher responsibility, based on the consequences of the research taking place, would be a more appropriate way delineate the scope of research ethics review. Weijer and Taljaard present a counterargument to our proposal, which we address in this reply. They claim that a focus on researcher responsibility will weaken the protection of research participants and link it to ‘unethical research’ and a ‘government experimenting on its own people’. However, the moral responsibility of researchers is defined in terms of the consequences of the research on human welfare and harm, not in opposition to it. Weijer and Taljaard argue that researchers must justify what they are studying whether or not they have any control over it and that governments must justify their programmes, including by demonstrating equipoise, to a research ethics committee if they implement them in a randomised way. We strongly disagree that this is a defensible way to define the scope of research ethics review and argue that this provides no further protections to research participants beyond what we propose, but places a potential barrier to learning from government programmes.</jats:p> 3 [] ["Samuel I Watson", "Mary Dixon-Woods", "Richard J Lilford"] ["WT09789"] ["Wellcome Trust", "National Institute for Health Research"] ["10.13039/100004440", "10.13039/501100000272"]
15 ["Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for plantar heel pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis"] 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098998 2019-01-21T15:05:26Z ["Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation", "Orthopedics and Sports Medicine", "General Medicine"] 62 9 ["0306-3674", "1473-0480"] British Journal of Sports Medicine <jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of current treatment options for plantar heel pain (PHP).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Data sources</jats:title><jats:p>Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database, Web of Science and WHO Clinical Trials Platform were searched from their inception until January 2018.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Study selection</jats:title><jats:p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PHP investigating common treatments (ie, corticosteroid injection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, therapeutic exercise, orthoses and/or extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT)) compared with each other or a no treatment, placebo/sham control.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Data extraction and analysis</jats:title><jats:p>Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were pain and function. Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects NMA in the short term, medium term and long term. Relative ranking of treatments was assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities (0–100 scale).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Thirty-one RCTs (total n=2450 patients) were included. There was no evidence of inconsistency detected between direct and indirect treatment comparisons in the networks, but sparse data led to frequently wide CIs. Available evidence does not suggest that any of the commonly used treatments for the management of PHP are better than any other, although corticosteroid injections, alone or in combination with exercise, and ESWT were ranked most likely to be effective for the management of short-term, medium-term and long-term pain or function; placebo/sham/control appeared least likely to be effective; and exercise appeared to only be beneficial for … 8 ["http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5064-6446", "http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-727X", "http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7248-6703"] ["Opeyemi O Babatunde", "Amardeep Legha", "Chris Littlewood", "Linda S Chesterton", "Martin J Thomas", "Hylton B Menz", "Danielle van der Windt", "Edward Roddy"] [] ["National Health and Medical Research Council", "National Institute for Health Research"] ["10.13039/501100000925", "10.13039/501100000272"]

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited

CSV options:

CREATE TABLE [article] (
   [title] TEXT,
   [DOI] TEXT,
   [URL] TEXT,
   [created] TEXT,
   [subject] TEXT,
   [references-count] TEXT,
   [is-referenced-by-count] TEXT,
   [container-title] TEXT,
   [abstract] TEXT,
   [author_number] TEXT,
   [orcids] TEXT,
   [names] TEXT,
   [award_numbers] TEXT,
   [funder_names] TEXT,
   [funder_dois] TEXT