Make sense of the research: A primer for educational leaders

2021 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-47
Author(s):  
David Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Educational Leaders ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Randomized Control Trials ◽  
P Values ◽  
Know How ◽  
High Effect ◽  
Education Leaders ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
Education Decision

Education leaders know that they should use research when choosing interventions for their schools, but they don’t always know how to read the research that is available. David Steiner explains some of the reasons that reading research is a low priority for educators on the front lines and offers some guidance for determining whether research results are meaningful without an extensive background in statistics. Ideally, education decision makers should look for randomized control trials with high effect sizes and low p-values.

scholarly journals Accuracy and Precision of Fixed and Random Effects in Meta-Analyses of Randomized Control Trials for Continuous Outcomes

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Gnambs ◽  
Ulrich Schroeders
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Variance Estimation ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Randomized Control Trials ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects ◽  
Regression Approach ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Meta-analyses of treatment effects in randomized control trials are often faced with the problem of missing information required to calculate effect sizes and their sampling variances. Particularly, correlations between pre- and posttest scores are frequently not available. As an ad-hoc solution, researchers impute a constant value for the missing correlation. As an alternative, we propose adopting a multivariate meta-regression approach that models independent group effect sizes and accounts for the dependency structure using robust variance estimation or three-level modeling. A comprehensive simulation study mimicking realistic conditions of meta-analyses in clinical and educational psychology suggested that the prevalent imputation approach works well for estimating the pooled effect but severely distorts the between-study heterogeneity. In contrast, the robust meta-regression approach resulted in largely unbiased fixed and random effects. Based on these results recommendations for meta-analytic practice and future meta-analytic developments are provided.

EXPRESS: Comparison of Mothership versus Drip-and-Ship Models in treating patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110132
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed ◽  
Nida Fatima ◽  
Ashfaq Shuaib ◽  
Maher Saqqur
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Randomized Control Trials ◽  
Symptomatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomized Control

Introduction There is controversy if direct to comprehensive center “mothership” (MS) or stopping at primary center for thrombolysis before transfer to comprehensive center “drip-and- ship” (DS) are best models of treatment of acute stroke. In this study, we compare MS and DS models to evaluate the best option of functional outcome. Methods Studies between 1990 and 2020 were extracted from online electronic databases. We compared the clinical outcomes, critical time measurements, functional independence and mortality were then compared. Results A total of 7,824 patients’ data were retrieved from 13 publications (3 randomized control trials and 10 retrospective ones). 4,639 (59.3%) patients were treated under MS model and 3,185 (40.7%) followed the DS model with mean age of 70.01±3.58 vs. 69.03±3.36; p< 0 .001, respectively. The National Institute Health Stroke Scale was 15.57±3.83 for the MS and 15.72±2.99 for the DS model (p=<0.001). The mean symptoms onset-to-puncture time was significantly shorter in the MS group compared to the DS (159.69 min vs. 223.89 min; p=<0.001, respectively). Moreover, the collected data indicated no significant difference between symptom’s onset to intravenous (IV) thrombolysis time and stroke onset-to-successful recanalization time (p=0.205 and p=<0.001, respectively). Patients had significantly worse functional outcome [modified rankin score (mRS)] (3-6) at 90-days in the DS model [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.13-1.92, p<0.004] and 1.49-folds higher likelihood of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR: 1.49, 95%CI: 1.22-1.81, p<0.0001) compared to MS. However, there were no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality (OR: 1.16, 95%CI: 0.87-1.55, p=0.32) and successful recanalization (OR: 1.12, 95%CI: 0.76-1.65, p=0.56) between the two models of care. Conclusion Patients in the MS model have significantly improved functional independence and recovery. Further studies are needed as the data from prospectively randomized studies is not of sufficient quality to make definite recommendations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document