31 results
OP96 Assessing Impact Of UK Health Technology Assessment Programme Trials
- Christopher Carroll, Andy Tattersall
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, p. 24
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Citation analysis is a standard tool for measuring the impact and influence of scientific work. One purpose behind controlled trials is to answer clinical and policy questions and to contribute directly or indirectly (contributing to systematic review and meta-analyses) to the production of practice guidance. The citation of trials within systematic reviews and policy or guidance documents therefore represents an authentic and meaningful measure of impact.
MethodsAll 136 randomized controlled trials published by the United Kingdom (UK) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme in a 10-year period (2006-2015) were identified. Web of Science citation index was used to collect citation data relating to each trial. Altmetrics were used to identify additional policy and guidance documents. Citation data were collected and tabulated, and descriptive statistics produced. Additional data were collected for principal ‘spin-off’ publications.
ResultsEighty-eight percent of trials were cited by at least one Cochrane or non-Cochrane systematic review or meta-analysis; 37 percent by at least one Cochrane review (90 Cochrane reviews in total); 85 percent by at least one non-Cochrane systematic review or meta-analysis (365 in total). Forty-four percent of trials were cited by at least one unique piece of published policy or guidance. Mean number of review citations per published trial: 25.30; mean number of systematic reviews/meta-analyses per trial: 3.34; mean number of guidance documents per trial: 0.85. Trial investigators published the primary clinical outcome data in 27 additional peer-reviewed journal articles, generating citations in a further 66 unique reviews and 22 unique guidance documents.
ConclusionsBased on the payback model, this sample of 136 UK HTA trials represent meaningful impact: 88 percent of trials were cited in systematic reviews and 44 percent in guidance documents. Chronological data indicate that there might be a sizeable time-lag between publication and impact, especially for policy documents and Cochrane reviews.
VP41 NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee Recommendations
- Christopher Carroll, Rumona Dickson, Angela Boland, Rachel Houten, Matthew Walton
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, pp. 86-87
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
This study explores the factors (principally evidential) that predict guidance recommendations by this NICE committee. There are three main types of recommendations: Standard/normal arrangements (can be done without restriction in the NHS); Special arrangements (can be done under certain conditions); and Research only.
MethodsThe following data were extracted from all published pieces of Interventional Procedure Guidance (IPGs) produced by this committee: year, IPG number, recommendations, evidence base (numbers and types of included studies, numbers of included patients etc.). All data were extracted independently by two researchers, and any disagreements clarified by consensus. Data were tabulated and descriptive statistics produced. Regression analyses will be performed using these data to identify any statistically significant predictors of recommendations.
ResultsIPG recommendations (n = 496); year range: 2003-2018. Proportion of IPGs by each recommendation: 50% Standard; 38% Special; 11% Research Only; 2% Do Not Do. Proportion of IPGs with highest level evidence (i.e. systematic review and/or RCT) by recommendation type: Standard = 64% (152/239); Special = 43% (77/180); Research Only = 48% (26/54); Do Not Do = 75% (6/8). Mean numbers of patients by recommendation type: Standard = 7,838; Special = 3,935; Research Only = 2,423. There is also a clear trend over time: Standard recommendations decrease for all IPGs from 63% in 2003-2009 to 40% in 2014-2018; and the evidence threshold for Standard recommendations increases over time from 56% based on systematic reviews and/or RCTs in 2003-2009 to 85% in 2014-2018; mean numbers of patients per Standard recommendation also increase from 2,002 to 6,098 over this period.
ConclusionsHigher levels evidence and numbers of patients increase the likelihood of the most positive recommendation. However, this evidence might still lack sufficient quality or certainty to answer a policy question. The evidence threshold to achieve a Standard recommendation has also increased markedly over time. As with other NICE committees, factors other than cost and perceived hierarchies of evidence clearly act as drivers of decisions.
3022 Barriers to Accessing Follow-up Care and Changes in Medical Needs after Childhood Injury
- Teresa Maria Bell, Ashley N Vetor, Dennis P Watson, Christopher A Harle, Aaron E Carroll
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 140-141
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study was to prospectively assess caregiver-perceived barriers to accessing post-acute care for their injured child and determine if caregivers report ongoing, unmet health needs for their children after trauma. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This was a prospective cohort study that followed 50 participants for 6 months and administered surveys to parents of children who are admitted to a pediatric level 1 trauma center for injury. Surveys were given bi-weekly regarding care children received after hospital discharge. At 3 months, parents were surveyed over the phone on whether they were able to access all needed health services and if there were any perceived barriers to obtaining or providing at-home care. At 6 months, parents were given the Child & Family Follow-up Survey to assess ongoing physical, mental, social, and scholastic needs. Free responses and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis and frequencies are reported for discrete data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Out of 50 families recruited, 47 completed follow-up assessments. At 3 months, common themes regarding challenges after hospital discharge included difficulty scheduling specialist care; uncertainty in managing their child’s pain; transitioning home without enough knowledge to meet their child’s medical needs; lack of communication between multiple providers; distress at having providers release children to full activities before caregivers were comfortable. At 6 months, approximately 24% of parents reported children had ongoing cognitive limitations, 29% reported emotional problems, 19% reported physical limitations, 33.3% reported difficulty in school, and 15% reported play/social difficulties. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Evidence suggests families face significant barriers in accessing follow-up care, despite nearly universal health insurance coverage for children. Further, a large percentage of parents report ongoing health needs, despite the majority of the cohort having only mild or moderate severity injuries. Making follow-up care more patient-centered for families of traumatically injured children may improve compliance with medical regiments and reduce the likelihood of future disability. Examples of this may be coordinating care among multiple specialty providers, so that patients with multiple injuries can schedule multiple follow-up appointments on the same day. Additionally, more caregiver education on administering pain medication, caring for wounds, and safe practices for returning to full activities would be beneficial for families.
2170 Risk factors for prescription opioid misuse after traumatic injury in adolescents
- Teresa M. Bell, Christopher A. Harle, Dennis P. Watson, Aaron E. Carroll
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 87
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study is to determine predictors and motives for sustained opioid use, prescription misuse, and nonmedical opioid use in the adolescent trauma population. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This is a prospective cohort study that will follow patients for 1 year and administer surveys to patients on prescription opioid usage; substance use; utilization of pain management and mental health services; mental and physical health conditions; and behavioral and social risk factors. Patient eligibility criteria include: (1) patient is 12–18 years of age; (2) admitted for trauma; (3) english speaking; (4) resides within Indianapolis, IN metropolitan area; and (5) consent can be obtained from a parent or guardian. Patients with severe brain injuries or other injuries that prevent survey participation will be excluded. The patient sample will comprise of 50 traumatically injured adolescents admitted for trauma who will be followed for 12 months after discharge. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We expect that the results of this study will identify multiple risk factors for sustained opioid use that can be used to create targeted interventions to reduce opioid misuse in the adolescent trauma population. Clinical predictors such as opioid type, dosage, and duration that can be modified to reduce the risk of long-term opioid use will be identified. We expect to elucidate clinical, behavioral, and social risk factors that increase the likelihood adolescents will misuse their medication and initiate nonmedical opioid use. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Trauma is a surgical specialty that often has limited collaboration with behavioral health providers. Collaborative care models for trauma patients to adequately address the psychological impact of a traumatic injury have become more common in recent years. These models have primarily been concerned with the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder. We would like to apply the findings of our research to better understand what motivates adolescents to misuse pain medications as well as how clinical, individual, behavioral, and social factors affect medication usage. This may help identify patients at greater risk of developing a SUD by asking questions not commonly addressed in the hospital setting. For example, similar to how trauma centers have mandated brief interventions on alcohol use be performed for center verification, screening patients’ on their social environment may identify patients at greater risk for SUD than assumed. The long-term goal would be to prevent opioid use disorders in injured adolescents by providing better post-acute care support, possibly by developing and implementing a collaborative care model that addresses opioid use. Additionally, we believe our findings could be applied in the acute care setting as well to help inform opioid prescribing and pain management methods in the acute phase of an injury. Genetic testing to determine which opioid to prescribe pediatric surgical patients is starting to be done at some pediatric hospitals. Certain genes determine which specific opioid is most effective in controlling a patient’s pain and, further, using the optimal opioid medication can also reduce overdose. Our findings may help refine prescribing patterns that could increase or decrease the likelihood of developing SUD in patients with certain genetic, clinical, behavioral, and social characteristics.
VP15 A Comparison Of Reporting In United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment And Other Systematic Reviews
- Christopher Carroll, Eva Kaltenthaler
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 33 / Issue S1 / 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 January 2018, pp. 152-153
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
INTRODUCTION:
A recent study claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly conducted and reported (1). The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards in systematic reviews published in 2014 in the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment (UK HTA) monograph series compared with the reporting in Cochrane and other “non-Cochrane” systematic reviews from the same year, as reported by Page et al. (1).
METHODS:All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and “non-Cochrane" systematic reviews from 2014, as published by Page et al. (1). All data were tabulated and summarized.
RESULTS:There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). Fewer UK HTA reviews covered therapeutic and pharmaceutical topics (53 percent and 20 percent respectively) than Cochrane (100 percent and 51 percent). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews: for example, availability of protocols (90 percent, 98 percent and 16 percent respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100 percent, 100 percent, 79 percent); the reporting of outcomes (100 percent, 100 percent, 78 percent), quality assessment (100 percent, 100 percent, 70 percent) and other processes; the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70 percent, 62 percent, 19 percent); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91 percent, 91 percent and 70 percent) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interest (100 percent, 100 percent, 87 percent). However, HTA reviews compare less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in the assessment of publication bias and reporting overall numbers of patients in the review.
CONCLUSIONS:UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context and cover a greater variety of topics than Cochrane reviews. This has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, they still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and are superior to systematic reviews more generally.
PP024 Changes In Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews For The United Kingdom
- Eva Kaltenthaler, Christopher Carroll
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 33 / Issue S1 / 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 January 2018, pp. 80-81
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
INTRODUCTION:
A recent publication reported that increasing numbers of systematic reviews are being published and, although standards have improved, many are still poorly conducted and reported, especially non-Cochrane systematic reviews (1). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews undertaken for the United Kingdom (UK) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and published in the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (2) and compare those undertaken in 2004 and 2014.
METHODS:A comparative sample of all systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 in the UK HTA monograph series was identified by a structured search of MEDLINE in August 2016. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data. These data were tabulated and summarized.
RESULTS:The search identified twenty-three systematic reviews from 2004 and thirty from 2014. By 2014, compared with 2004, a smaller proportion of treatment (53 percent versus 70 percent) and pharmaceutical (20 percent versus 57 percent) reviews were being published. In 2014, there were much higher percentages of review registrations (70 percent versus 0 percent) and available protocols (90 percent versus 17 percent); increased explicit inclusion of unpublished literature (65 percent versus 39 percent); less frequent use of local checklists (32 percent versus 61 percent) for critical appraisal; more complete reporting of study flow for inclusion (97 percent versus 57 percent) and exclusion (91 percent and 65 percent) of studies; and there were more reviews reporting limitations affecting the review itself (73 percent versus 49 percent). The process had clearly become more reflective and rigorous. However, some previous weaknesses persisted, including the general absence of any assessment of publication bias and the failure to report overall numbers of patients in the review.
CONCLUSIONS:Marked improvements can be seen in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews published by the UK HTA programme as a result of the publication and general acceptance of the PRISMA statement (3) and the increased application of a smaller number of relevant standards.
Emergence of Previously Unknown Poxviruses
- Cynthia S. Goldsmith, Maureen G. Metcalfe, Yu Li, Whitni B. Davidson, Kimberly Wilkins, Amira A. Roess, Lynda U. Osadebe, Neil M. Vora, Christopher H. Hsu, Mary Reynolds, Darin Carroll, Inger K. Damon, Sherif R. Zaki
-
- Journal:
- Microscopy and Microanalysis / Volume 22 / Issue S3 / July 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 25 July 2016, pp. 1184-1185
- Print publication:
- July 2016
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
17 - Respiratory disease in pregnancy
- from Section 4 - Medical conditions in pregnancy
-
- By Christopher Kelly, Specialty Trainee, in Anaesthesia, North West Deanery, University Hospital of South Manchester, Wythenshawe, UK, Simon Maguire, Consultant Anaesthetist, South Manchester University Hospital Trust, Manchester, UK, Craig Carroll, Consultant Neuroanaesthetist, Salford Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
- Edited by Kirsty MacLennan, Kate O'Brien, W. Ross Macnab
-
- Book:
- Core Topics in Obstetric Anaesthesia
- Published online:
- 05 December 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 October 2015, pp 123-129
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
A number of significant physiological changes occur within the maternal respiratory system throughout pregnancy, either as a result of hormonal or neonatal effects. Chapter 1 details these changes.
Asthma
Asthma is a common condition characterized by intermittent reversible airways obstruction, chronic inflammation of the airways and bronchospasm. It affects approximately 5% of the population in the UK and is more common in women than men.
Asthma may be affected by pregnancy. Meta-analysis has shown approximately one-third of women will have improved symptoms, one-third will worsen and one-third will see no changes. Any worsening of symptoms will typically peak at six months gestation. There is often an improvement of symptoms during labour, perhaps due to endogenous corticosteroid production, with acute asthma being very rare at this stage.
Well-controlled asthma is unlikely to have any impact on the pregnancy. Uncontrolled asthma is associated with a variety of complications, including hyperemesis, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, vaginal haemorrhage, complicated labour, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, increased perinatal mortality and neonatal hypoxia. Large cohort studies have shown an increased caesarean section rate in those with moderate and severe asthma.
Treatment should be optimized during pregnancy. A large case-controlled study showed no increased risk of congenital malformations in mothers being treated for asthma. There is good evidence that the older therapies have no teratogenic effects and no evidence to show the newer agents cause any harm. The risk of uncontrolled asthma is far greater than the theoretical risk of therapy.
Acute asthma should be managed in the standard way. Poor management is associated with poor outcomes for mother and fetus; there is no known risk to the fetus with standard treatment.
Asthma is not a contraindication to any form of labour analgesia. Should caesarean section be required, regional anaesthesia is suitable, as those with asthma are less likely to tolerate mechanical ventilation well.
Postpartum haemorrhage can safely be managed with syntometrine and prostaglandin E2. Prostaglandin F2α may cause bronchospasm.
Breastfeeding is not a contraindication to any of the treatments given for asthma, none of which are found in dangerous levels in the milk. Oral steroids may also be given safely to the breastfeeding mother.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Brittany L. Anderson-Montoya, Heather R. Bailey, Carryl L. Baldwin, Daphne Bavelier, Jameson D. Beach, Jeffrey S. Bedwell, Kevin B. Bennett, Richard A. Block, Deborah A. Boehm-Davis, Corey J. Bohil, David B. Boles, Avinoam Borowsky, Jessica Bramlett, Allison A. Brennan, J. Christopher Brill, Matthew S. Cain, Meredith Carroll, Roberto Champney, Kait Clark, Nancy J. Cooke, Lori M. Curtindale, Clare Davies, Patricia R. DeLucia, Andrew E. Deptula, Michael B. Dillard, Colin D. Drury, Christopher Edman, James T. Enns, Sara Irina Fabrikant, Victor S. Finomore, Arthur D. Fisk, John M. Flach, Matthew E. Funke, Andre Garcia, Adam Gazzaley, Douglas J. Gillan, Rebecca A. Grier, Simen Hagen, Kelly Hale, Diane F. Halpern, Peter A. Hancock, Deborah L. Harm, Mary Hegarty, Laurie M. Heller, Nicole D. Helton, William S. Helton, Robert R. Hoffman, Jerred Holt, Xiaogang Hu, Richard J. Jagacinski, Keith S. Jones, Astrid M. L. Kappers, Simon Kemp, Robert C. Kennedy, Robert S. Kennedy, Alan Kingstone, Ioana Koglbauer, Norman E. Lane, Robert D. Latzman, Cynthia Laurie-Rose, Patricia Lee, Richard Lowe, Valerie Lugo, Poornima Madhavan, Leonard S. Mark, Gerald Matthews, Jyoti Mishra, Stephen R. Mitroff, Tracy L. Mitzner, Alexander M. Morison, Taylor Murphy, Takamichi Nakamoto, John G. Neuhoff, Karl M. Newell, Tal Oron-Gilad, Raja Parasuraman, Tiffany A. Pempek, Robert W. Proctor, Katie A. Ragsdale, Anil K. Raj, Millard F. Reschke, Evan F. Risko, Matthew Rizzo, Wendy A. Rogers, Jesse Q. Sargent, Mark W. Scerbo, Natasha B. Schwartz, F. Jacob Seagull, Cory-Ann Smarr, L. James Smart, Kay Stanney, James Staszewski, Clayton L. Stephenson, Mary E. Stuart, Breanna E. Studenka, Joel Suss, Leedjia Svec, James L. Szalma, James Tanaka, James Thompson, Wouter M. Bergmann Tiest, Lauren A. Vassiliades, Michael A. Vidulich, Paul Ward, Joel S. Warm, David A. Washburn, Christopher D. Wickens, Scott J. Wood, David D. Woods, Motonori Yamaguchi, Lin Ye, Jeffrey M. Zacks
- Edited by Robert R. Hoffman, Peter A. Hancock, University of Central Florida, Mark W. Scerbo, Old Dominion University, Virginia, Raja Parasuraman, George Mason University, Virginia, James L. Szalma, University of Central Florida
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research
- Published online:
- 05 July 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 January 2015, pp xi-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Tod C. Aeby, Melanie D. Altizer, Ronan A. Bakker, Meghann E. Batten, Anita K. Blanchard, Brian Bond, Megan A. Brady, Saweda A. Bright, Ellen L. Brock, Amy Brown, Ashley Carroll, Jori S. Carter, Frances Casey, Weldon Chafe, David Chelmow, Jessica M. Ciaburri, Stephen A. Cohen, Adrianne M. Colton, PonJola Coney, Jennifer A. Cross, Julie Zemaitis DeCesare, Layson L. Denney, Megan L. Evans, Nicole S. Fanning, Tanaz R. Ferzandi, Katie P. Friday, Nancy D. Gaba, Rajiv B. Gala, Andrew Galffy, Adrienne L. Gentry, Edward J. Gill, Philippe Girerd, Meredith Gray, Amy Hempel, Audra Jolyn Hill, Chris J. Hong, Kathryn A. Houston, Patricia S. Huguelet, Warner K. Huh, Jordan Hylton, Christine R. Isaacs, Alison F. Jacoby, Isaiah M. Johnson, Nicole W. Karjane, Emily E. Landers, Susan M. Lanni, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Lee A. Learman, Nikola Alexander Letham, Rachel K. Love, Richard Scott Lucidi, Elisabeth McGaw, Kimberly Woods McMorrow, Christopher A. Manipula, Kirk J. Matthews, Michelle Meglin, Megan Metcalf, Sarah H. Milton, Gaby Moawad, Christopher Morosky, Lindsay H. Morrell, Elizabeth L. Munter, Erin L. Murata, Amanda B. Murchison, Nguyet A. Nguyen, Nan G. O’Connell, Tony Ogburn, K. Nathan Parthasarathy, Thomas C. Peng, Ashley Peterson, Sarah Peterson, John G. Pierce, Amber Price, Heidi J. Purcell, Ronald M. Ramus, Nicole Calloway Rankins, Fidelma B. Rigby, Amanda H. Ritter, Barbara L. Robinson, Danielle Roncari, Lisa Rubinsak, Jennifer Salcedo, Mary T. Sale, Peter F. Schnatz, John W. Seeds, Kathryn Shaia, Karen Shelton, Megan M. Shine, Haller J. Smith, Roger P. Smith, Nancy A. Sokkary, Reni A. Soon, Aparna Sridhar, Lilja Stefansson, Laurie S. Swaim, Chemen M. Tate, Hong-Thao Thieu, Meredith S. Thomas, L. Chesney Thompson, Tiffany Tonismae, Angela M. Tran, Breanna Walker, Alan G. Waxman, C. Nathan Webb, Valerie L. Williams, Sarah B. Wilson, Elizabeth M. Yoselevsky, Amy E. Young
- Edited by David Chelmow, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christine R. Isaacs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Ashley Carroll, Virginia Commonwealth University
-
- Book:
- Acute Care and Emergency Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 November 2014
- Print publication:
- 30 October 2014, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Yohance M. Allette, Christophe Altier, Charles E. Argoff, Nadine Attal, Paul J. Austin, Didier Bouhassira, Ian Carroll, Kristine M. Chapman, Stephen Coleman, Lynn Kerene Cooper, Michael R. Due, Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, Robyn Flynn, Andrea D. Furlan, Vishal Gupta, Maija Haanpää, Jennifer Hah, Steven H. Horowitz, John Hughes, Mark R. Hutchinson, Scott Jarvis, Maan Kattan, Manpreet Kaur, Bradley J. Kerr, Krishna Kumar, Yuen Hei Kwok, Wojciech Leppert, Liang Liu, Angela Mailis-Gagnon, Gila Moalem-Taylor, Dwight E. Moulin, Harsha Nagaraja, Dontese Nicholson, Lauren Nicotra, Anne Louise Oaklander, John Xavier Pereira, Syed Rizvi, Stephan A. Schug, Michael Serpell, Amanda Sherwin, Howard S. Smith, Peter A. Smith, Pam Squire, Peter A. Ste-Marie, Patrick L. Stemkowski, Nicole M. Sumracki, Cory Toth, Krista van Steeg, Jan H. Vranken, Bharati Vyawahare, Mark A. Ware, Linda R. Watkins, C. Peter N. Watson, Fletcher A. White
- Edited by Cory Toth, Dwight E. Moulin
-
- Book:
- Neuropathic Pain
- Published online:
- 05 December 2013
- Print publication:
- 07 November 2013, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
ASSESSING SEARCHES IN NICE SINGLE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS: PRACTICE AND CHECKLIST
- Ruth Wong, Suzy Paisley, Christopher Carroll
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 29 / Issue 3 / July 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 June 2013, pp. 315-322
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objectives: No guidelines exist in the approach that Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) should take to appraise search methodologies in the manufacturer's submission (MS) in Single Technology Appraisals (STA). As a result, ERGs are left to appraise searches using their own approach. This study investigates the limitations of manufacturers' search methodologies as critiqued by ERGs in published STA reports and to provide a recommended checklist.
Methods: Limitations from search critiques in 83 ERG reports published in the NIHR Web site between 2006 and May 2011 were extracted. The limitations were grouped into themes. Comparisons were made between limitations reported in the clinical effectiveness versus cost-effectiveness searches.
Results: Twelve themes were identified, six relating to the search strategy, source, limits, filters, translation, reporting, and missing studies. The search strategy theme contained the most limitations. Missing studies were frequently found by the ERG group in the clinical effectiveness searches. The omission of searches by manufacturers for unpublished and ongoing trials was frequently reported by the ERG. By contrast, failure of the manufacturer to report strategies was the most common limitation in the cost-effectiveness searches. Themes with the most frequent limitations in both types of searches are search strategy, reporting and source.
Conclusions: It is recommended that a checklist that has reporting, source and search strategy elements be used in the appraisal of manufacturer's searches during the STA process.
Accelerating the development of emotion competence in Head Start children: Effects on adaptive and maladaptive behavior
- Carroll E. Izard, Kristen A. King, Christopher J. Trentacosta, Judith K. Morgan, Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, E. Stephanie Krauthamer-Ewing, Kristy J. Finlon
-
- Journal:
- Development and Psychopathology / Volume 20 / Issue 1 / Winter 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 January 2008, pp. 369-397
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Separate studies of rural and urban Head Start systems tested the hypothesis that an emotion-based prevention program (EBP) would accelerate the development of emotion and social competence and decrease agonistic behavior and potential precursors of psychopathology. In both studies, Head Start centers were randomly assigned to treatment and control/comparison group conditions. In Study 1 (rural community), results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that compared to the control condition (Head Start as usual), EBP produced greater increases in emotion knowledge and emotion regulation and greater decreases in children's negative emotion expressions, aggression, anxious/depressed behavior, and negative peer and adult interactions. In Study 2 (inner city), compared to the established prevention program I Can Problem Solve, EBP led to greater increases in emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, positive emotion expression, and social competence. In Study 2, emotion knowledge mediated the effects of EBP on emotion regulation, and emotion competence (an aggregate of emotion knowledge and emotion regulation) mediated the effects of EBP on social competence.
Brain, emotions, and emotion-cognition relations
- Carroll E. Izard, Christopher J. Trentacosta, Kristen A. King
-
- Journal:
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 28 / Issue 2 / April 2005
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 August 2005, pp. 208-209
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Lewis makes a strong case for the interdependence and integration of emotion and cognitive processes. Yet, these processes exhibit considerable independence in early life, as well as in certain psychopathological conditions, suggesting that the capacity for their integration emerges as a function of development. In some circumstances, the concept of highly interactive emotion and cognitive systems seems a viable alternative hypothesis to the idea of systems integration.
First grade emotion knowledge as a predictor of fifth grade self-reported internalizing behaviors in children from economically disadvantaged families
- SARAH E. FINE, CARROLL E. IZARD, ALLISON J. MOSTOW, CHRISTOPHER J. TRENTACOSTA, BRIAN P. ACKERMAN
-
- Journal:
- Development and Psychopathology / Volume 15 / Issue 2 / June 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 June 2003, pp. 331-342
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In this longitudinal study, we examined the relations between emotion knowledge in first grade, teacher reports of internalizing and externalizing behaviors from first grade, and children's self-reported internalizing behaviors in fifth grade. At Time 1, we assessed emotion knowledge, expressive vocabulary, caregiver-reported earned income, and teacher-rated internalizing and externalizing behaviors in 7-year-old children from economically disadvantaged families (N = 154). At Time 2, when the children were age 11, we collected children's self-reports of negative emotions, depression, anxiety, and loneliness. First grade teacher-reported externalizing behaviors, but not first grade internalizing behaviors, were positively related to children's self-reports of internalizing behaviors in fifth grade. First grade emotion knowledge accounted for a significant amount of variance in children's self-reports of internalizing symptoms 4 years later, after controlling for per capita earned income, expressive vocabulary, and teacher-reported internalizing and externalizing behaviors in first grade.
Emotion processes in normal and abnormal development and preventive intervention
- CARROLL E. IZARD, SARAH FINE, ALLISON MOSTOW, CHRISTOPHER TRENTACOSTA, JAN CAMPBELL
-
- Journal:
- Development and Psychopathology / Volume 14 / Issue 4 / December 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 November 2002, pp. 761-787
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
We present an analysis of the role of emotions in normal and abnormal development and preventive intervention. The conceptual framework stems from three tenets of differential emotions theory (DET). These principles concern the constructs of emotion utilization; intersystem connections among modular emotion systems, cognition, and action; and the organizational and motivational functions of discrete emotions. Particular emotions and patterns of emotions function differentially in different periods of development and in influencing the cognition and behavior associated with different forms of psychopathology. Established prevention programs have not emphasized the concept of emotion as motivation. It is even more critical that they have generally neglected the idea of modulating emotions, not simply to achieve self-regulation, but also to utilize their inherently adaptive functions as a means of facilitating the development of social competence and preventing psychopathology. The paper includes a brief description of a theory-based prevention program and suggestions for complementary targeted interventions to address specific externalizing and internalizing problems. In the final section, we describe ways in which emotion-centered preventions can provide excellent opportunities for research on the development of normal and abnormal behavior.
Competitiveness and hemodynamic reactions to competition
- JET J.C.S. VELDHUIJZEN VAN ZANTEN, DOLF DE BOER, LESLEY K. HARRISON, CHRISTOPHER RING, DOUGLAS CARROLL, GONNEKE WILLEMSEN, ECO J.C. DE GEUS
-
- Journal:
- Psychophysiology / Volume 39 / Issue 6 / November 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 January 2003, pp. 759-766
- Print publication:
- November 2002
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This study examines the effects of competition and competitiveness on hemodynamics. Cardiovascular activity was measured in 27 men at resting baseline and during a car racing game, which comprised a solo race against time and three races against an experimenter. To assess hematocrit, blood was collected at rest and after the final race. Trait competitiveness was assessed by questionnaire. Competition elicited increases in hematocrit, blood pressure, heart rate, and total peripheral resistance, as well as decreases in preejection period and heart rate variability. The final race was rated as more competitive than the solo race. Compared to intrapersonal solo racing, the final interpersonal race was associated with shorter preejection periods and faster heart rates, markers of beta-adrenergic activation. Although trait competitiveness was not associated with beta-adrenergic activation, variations in state competitiveness were.
Shifting hemodynamics of blood pressure control during prolonged mental stress
- CHRISTOPHER RING, VICTORIA E. BURNS, DOUGLAS CARROLL
-
- Journal:
- Psychophysiology / Volume 39 / Issue 5 / September 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 August 2002, pp. 585-590
- Print publication:
- September 2002
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The present study examined the hemodynamics underlying blood pressure elevations for evidence of a shift in the control of blood pressure during prolonged mental stress. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), and total peripheral resistance (TPR) were measured at rest, during a 28-min mental arithmetic stress task, and during recovery, in 30 young healthy men and women. The stress task elicited a sustained increase in MAP: CO rose during the first half of the task but returned to baseline levels during the last quarter of the task, whereas TPR increased as the task progressed. When participants' hemodynamic reactions were classified as cardiac, vascular, or neither, there were more cardiac reactors early relative to late in the task, whereas there were more vascular reactors late relative to early. Thus, the sustained pressor response was initially supported mainly by cardiac mechanisms but subsequently by predominantly vascular mechanisms.
The human nociceptive flexion reflex threshold is higher during systole than diastole
- LOUISA EDWARDS, DAVID McINTYRE, DOUGLAS CARROLL, CHRISTOPHER RING, UNA MARTIN
-
- Journal:
- Psychophysiology / Volume 39 / Issue 5 / September 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 August 2002, pp. 678-681
- Print publication:
- September 2002
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A baroreflex mechanism may explain hypertensive hypoalgesia. At rest, arterial baroreceptors are stimulated during the systolic upstroke of the pressure pulse wave. This study examined the effects of naturally occurring variations in baroreceptor activity during the cardiac cycle on an objective measure of pain, the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR). Two interleaved up–down staircase procedures determined separate NFR thresholds during systole and diastole in 36 healthy, normotensive young adults. On odd-numbered trials, the sural nerve was stimulated electrocutaneously at R + 300 ms whereas on even-numbered trials, stimulation was delivered at R + 600 ms. The NFR threshold was higher at R + 300 ms than R + 600 ms. In contrast, stimulus intensity ratings did not differ between R + 300 ms and R + 600 ms. Stimulation of baroreceptors by natural increases in blood pressure during the systolic phase of the cardiac cycle was associated with dampened nociception.