Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Scientific Standards (scientific + standards)
Selected AbstractsRandomization in psychiatric intervention research in the general practice settingINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 3 2000CM Van Der Feltz-Cornelis Faculty of Medicine Abstract Most studies of psychiatric interventions in general practice settings conform only in part to the requirements of randomization, placebo control and blinding as formulated by the Cochrane Collaboration. It is possible, nonetheless, to develop experimental research designs that are sufficiently near to this standard. These must deal with certain methodological issues specific to psychiatric research. This article discusses scientific standards of psychiatric research with special consideration of interventions in general practice settings. These issues are accompanied by concrete examples and suggestions on how to confront the problems. In psychiatric intervention research, equivalence studies with single-blind outcome assessment, a tested and ethically justified method, are generally used in place of placebo-controlled studies. The article also examines randomization procedures in greater depth. Randomization can be applied across trial subjects or across doctors' practices. Practical consequences of randomizing across subjects, and specific implementations of it such as crossover and pre-post designs in general practice settings, are clarified. Overall, a research design using randomization across doctors' practices is judged preferable to one that randomizes across trial subjects. One potential problem is that the control group may become too small, especially when considerable effects are expected from the intervention being studied. One might consider making the control condition smaller in the first place, or, if indicated on ethical grounds, performing an intermediate analysis and then breaking off the study as soon as a statistically significant effect has been demonstrated. Multilevel statistical techniques offer new opportunities for analysis within such designs. Copyright © 2000 Whurr Publishers Ltd. [source] Author accountability and scientific standardsOBESITY REVIEWS, Issue 3 2002A. Astrup Editor-in-Chief [source] Annotation: What do we know about sensory dysfunction in autism?THE JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY AND ALLIED DISCIPLINES, Issue 12 2005A critical review of the empirical evidence Background:, Unusual responses to sensory stimuli are seen in many children with autism. Their presence was highlighted both in early accounts of autism and in more recent first-person descriptions. There is a widespread belief that sensory symptoms characterize autism and differentiate it from other disorders. This paper examines the empirical evidence for this assumption. Method:, All controlled experimental laboratory investigations published since 1960 were identified through systematic searches using Medline/PubMed and PsycInfo search engines. A total of 48 empirical papers and 27 theoretical or conceptual papers were reviewed. Results:, Sensory symptoms are more frequent and prominent in children with autism than in typically developing children, but there is not good evidence that these symptoms differentiate autism from other developmental disorders. Certain groups, including children with fragile X syndrome and those who are deaf-blind, appear to demonstrate higher rates of sensory symptoms than children with autism. In reviewing the evidence relevant to two theories of sensory dysfunction in autism, over- and under-arousal theory, we find that there is very little support for hyper-arousal and failure of habituation in autism. There is more evidence that children with autism, as a group, are hypo-responsive to sensory stimuli, but there are also multiple failures to replicate findings and studies that demonstrate lack of group differences. Conclusions:, The use of different methods, the study of different sensory modalities, and the changing scientific standards across decades complicate interpretation of this body of work. We close with suggestions for future research in this area. [source] Erosion of scientific standards: where will it end?AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL, Issue 12 2004J MULCAHY No abstract is available for this article. [source] | ||||||||||