Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl D. Coon ◽  
Karon F. Cook
2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822097897
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Dettori ◽  
Daniel C. Norvell ◽  
Jens R. Chapman

Author(s):  
Noelia Sabater-Cruz ◽  
◽  
Marc Figueras-Roca ◽  
Miriam Ferrán-Fuertes ◽  
Elba Agustí ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (18) ◽  
pp. B314
Author(s):  
Yutaka Tadano ◽  
Daitaro Kanno ◽  
Daisuke Hachinohe ◽  
Yoshifumi Kashima ◽  
Morio Enomoto ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 315-325
Author(s):  
Benedict A. Rogers ◽  
Jaskarndip Chahal ◽  
Allan E. Gross

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David S Liebeskind ◽  
Yanchang Zhang ◽  
Erol Veznedaroglu ◽  
Joey English ◽  
Blaise W Baxter ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Skye P. Barbic ◽  
Stefan J. Cano

Clinical outcome assessment (COA) in mental health is essential to inform patient-centred care and clinical decision-making. In this chapter, the reader is introduced to COA as it is evolving in the field of mental health. Multiple approaches to COA are presented, but emphasis is placed on approaches that generate clinically meaningful data. Understanding COA can position clinicians and stakeholders to better evaluate their own practice and to contribute to the ongoing evolution of COA research and evidence-based medicine. This chapter begins with the definitions of assessment and measurement. Conceptual frameworks and models of COA development and testing are then presented. These are followed by a discussion of measurement in practice that reviews measurement issues related to clinical decision-making, programme evaluation, and clinical trials. Finally, this chapter highlights the contribution of metrology to improving health outcomes of individuals who experience mental health disorders.


Angiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Plinio Cirillo ◽  
Luigi Di Serafino ◽  
Vittorio Taglialatela ◽  
Paolo Calabrò ◽  
Emilia Antonucci ◽  
...  

Optimal medical therapy (OMT) at discharge is recommended after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Few studies report the impact of OMT on long-term clinical outcome in a real-world scenario. We evaluated the impact of discharge OMT on top of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on clinical outcome in the real-world ACS population of the Survey on anTicoagulated pAtients RegisTer ANTIPLATELET registry. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or target vessel revascularization. The co-primary end point was net adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (NACE), based on MACCE plus major bleeding. Consecutive patients with ACS with 1-year follow-up were enrolled. They were evaluated at discharge for the use of a β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blockers and statins. Optimal medical therapy was defined as the use of ≥2 of 3 medications. At multivariate analysis, both MACCE and NACE were significantly higher in non-OMT patients than in OMT patients (MACCE 18 [19] vs 59 [9], hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44 [0.26-0.75], P = .002, NACE 19 [20] vs 67 [10], HR = 0.47 [0.28-0.79], P = .004). In this real-world scenario, OMT at discharge on top of DAPT seems associated with a better clinical outcome compared with patients discharged on non-OMT.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document