Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Terminology as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 937 records · Page 52Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Statistics in the pharmacy literature.

BACKGROUND: Research in statistical methods is essential for maintenance of high quality of the published literature. OBJECTIVE: To update previous reports of the types and frequencies of statistical terms and procedures in research studies of selected professional pharmacy journals. METHODS: We obtained all research articles published in 2001 in 6 journals: American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy, and Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. Two independent reviewers identified and recorded descriptive and inferential statistical terms/procedures found in the methods, results, and discussion sections of each article. Results were determined by tallying the total number of times, as well as the percentage, that each statistical term or procedure appeared in the articles. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four articles were included. Ninety-eight percent employed descriptive statistics; of these, 28% used only descriptive statistics. The most common descriptive statistical terms were percentage (90%), mean (74%), standard deviation (58%), and range (46%). Sixty-nine percent of the articles used inferential statistics, the most frequent being chi(2) (33%), Student's t-test (26%), Pearson's correlation coefficient r (18%), ANOVA (14%), and logistic regression (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical terms and procedures were found in nearly all of the research articles published in pharmacy journals. Thus, pharmacy education should aim to provide current and future pharmacists with an understanding of the common statistical terms and procedures identified to facilitate the appropriate appraisal and consequential utilization of the information available in research articles.

Education, Pharmacy↗
PubMed2002

The potentially coercive nature of some clinical research trial acronyms.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential coerciveness of clinical research trial (CRT) acronyms, and to make clinicians aware that some CRT acronyms may be coercive to research subjects by subliminally enticing or outwardly promising something that the CRT may not be able to deliver. DESIGN: Analysis of CRT acronyms for pleasantness and meaningfulness as assessed by studies in the behavioral and social psychology literature. RESULTS: Of 2,383 acronyms for CRTs analyzed, 155 acronyms (6.5%) were assessed as possibly, probably, or almost certainly coercive. On a Likert scale from 1 to 5 for pleasantness or meaningfulness, the acronyms identified as almost certainly coercive had a mean pleasantness score of 4.21 (range, 3.70 to 4.57), the acronyms identified as probably coercive had a mean score of 3.79 (range, 2.45 to 5.00), and the acronyms identified as possibly coercive had a mean score of 3.89 (range, 2.81 to 5.00). CONCLUSIONS: A distraught or frightened patient with a life-threatening illness who is offered a research study with an acronym of CURE, HOPE, HELP, IMPROVED, LIFE, RESCUE, MIRACL (sic), SAVED, or ALIVE is possibly being coerced by the acronym. Institutional review boards (IRBs) and the medical research community would not tolerate a CRT entitled, "A Surefire Cure for Cancer." They should be no more tolerant of a CRT with an acronym listed above. It is time for researchers, sponsors, and IRBs to take a more responsible approach to potentially coercive CRT acronyms and discourage or prohibit their use.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1996

Drug-induced delirium. Incidence, management and prevention.

Drugs may be the most frequent single cause of delirium, and very often they are a critical element in a multifactorial aetiology. While delirium may be precipitated by virtually any drug, certain classes of drugs are more commonly implicated. Effective management of drug-induced delirium involves recognition, cessation or dosage reduction of the causative drug(s), and initiation of reorientation strategies and supportive medical care. Specific "antidotes' are appropriate in only a few limited cases. Drug treatment aimed at sedation should be introduced for specific indications, such as aggression, risk of harm to self or others, hallucinations, patient distress, and where compliance with therapy or procedures is essential. Certain benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) and/or haloperidol may be the most appropriate choices in these circumstances. Primary prevention requires the prescription of alternative lower risk medications and the minimisation of polypharmacy. Secondary prevention may be achieved through improved recognition of the condition.

Anti-Infective Agents↗
PubMed1988

DSM-III-R: too much too soon?

Some of the more important changes carried out in the recently published revision of the DSM-III classification (DSM-III-R) are described, and an assessment is made on whether a revision of this nature was necessary and whether it achieved its aims. Since a large number of disorders have been modified in one way or another and since empirical evidence for many of the changes is lacking, the author concludes that DSM-III-R, rather than illuminating the field, is likely to cause confusion and frustration in the minds of clinicians, researchers and administrators, and that in fact DSM-III-R is a new classification, a DSM-IV in disguise.

Humans↗