GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, SAGE Publications, Vol. 3, No. 3 ( 2020-09), p. 309-331
    Abstract: Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p 〈 .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2515-2459 , 2515-2467
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2904847-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Multiple Sclerosis Journal, SAGE Publications, Vol. 27, No. 14 ( 2021-12), p. 2254-2266
    Abstract: To investigate clinical outcomes in a real-world setting in the complete population-based cohort of alemtuzumab-treated MS patients in Denmark. Methods: Data were retrieved from The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry between 2009 and 2019. Demographic and disease-specific patient parameters related to treatment history, efficacy, and safety outcomes were assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Results: A total of 209 patients (78% female) started treatment with alemtuzumab during the study period with 3.1 ± 1.4 years follow-up. After 2 years, 75% of patients were relapse-free compared to 48% the year before alemtuzumab ( p  〈  0.001). The annual number of relapses was reduced by 69% in year 4 compared with the year prior alemtuzumab. More active disease before alemtuzumab increased the annual hazard rate for relapse (HR: 2.88, p  〈  0.001). The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score remained stable or improved in 81% of patients after 2 years. The need for an additional treatment course was associated with higher number of relapses in the year before alemtuzumab (odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In a country with primarily escalation strategy, relapse rate reduction was maintained for 5 years, and EDSS stabilized/improved in majority of patients. Higher relapse rate 1 year before alemtuzumab increased the odds for additional courses. Novel serious AEs were not observed.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1352-4585 , 1477-0970
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008225-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: International Journal of Stroke, SAGE Publications, Vol. 15, No. 6 ( 2020-08), p. 638-649
    Abstract: Treatment of individuals with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is still handled controversially. Recommendations for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are based on trials having recruited patients more than 15 years ago. Registry data indicate that advances in best medical treatment (BMT) may lead to a markedly decreasing risk of stroke in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of the SPACE-2 trial (ISRCTN78592017) was to compare the stroke preventive effects of BMT alone with that of BMT in combination with CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS), respectively, in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of ≥70% European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) criteria. Methods SPACE-2 is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, open study. A major secondary endpoint was the cumulative rate of any stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or death from any cause within 30 days plus an ipsilateral ischemic stroke within one year of follow-up. Safety was assessed as the rate of any stroke and death from any cause within 30 days after CEA or CAS. Protocol changes had to be implemented. The results on the one-year period after treatment are reported. Findings It was planned to enroll 3550 patients. Due to low recruitment, the enrollment of patients was stopped prematurely after randomization of 513 patients in 36 centers to CEA (n = 203), CAS (n = 197), or BMT (n = 113). The one-year rate of the major secondary endpoint did not significantly differ between groups (CEA 2.5%, CAS 3.0%, BMT 0.9%; p = 0.530) as well as rates of any stroke (CEA 3.9%, CAS 4.1%, BMT 0.9%; p = 0.256) and all-cause mortality (CEA 2.5%, CAS 1.0%, BMT 3.5%; p = 0.304). About half of all strokes occurred in the peri-interventional period. Higher albeit statistically non-significant rates of restenosis occurred in the stenting group (CEA 2.0% vs. CAS 5.6%; p = 0.068) without evidence of increased stroke rates. Interpretation The low sample size of this prematurely stopped trial of 513 patients implies that its power is not sufficient to show that CEA or CAS is superior to a modern medical therapy (BMT) in the primary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with an asymptomatic carotid stenosis up to one year after treatment. Also, no evidence for differences in safety between CAS and CEA during the first year after treatment could be derived. Follow-up will be performed up to five years. Data may be used for pooled analysis with ongoing trials.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1747-4930 , 1747-4949
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2211666-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...