Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

BDS2 PMHP > Evidence based dentistry > Flashcards

Evidence based dentistry Flashcards

1
Q

risk

A

What are the chances…?

Good (positive) or bad (negative)

  • …having a heart attack
  • …surviving prostate cancer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

outcome

A

“something” that might happen, what you are measuring

  • Death, heart attack, cancer diagnosis (bad)
  • Tooth decay/ periodontitis/ TMJD (bad)
  • Caries free (good)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what are statistics?

A

Numbers that summarize information

  • Based on observations of large numbers people
  • Useful in predicting what is likely to happen in the future
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what are risk statistics?

A

The chance that an outcome will happen – risk of an outcome

- Fractions or differences between 2 numbers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

numerator in risk statistics

A

top number in fraction)

= number of people who actually experience the outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

denominator in risk statistics

A

(bottom number in fraction)

= the number of people who could potentially experience the outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

risks and odds in binary events

A

express the chance of being in one of the two states.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

binary events

A

one or another outcomes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

risk =

A

number of events of interest /

total number of observations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

odds =

A

number of events of interest /

number without the event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ways of expressing risk

A

can be asked in exam, numbers and words

  • The chances of falling were one in four,
  • 25%.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

ways of expressing odds

A

can be asked in exam, numbers and words

  • The chances of falling were one third of the chances of not falling;
  • One person fell for every three that didn’t fall;
  • The chances of falling were 3 to 1 against.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

questions to ask when interpreting risk (4)

A

Risk of what?
- What is the outcome?
(Getting a disease? Dying from a disease? Developing a symptom? Surviving a disease?)

How big is the risk?
- What are the chances of experiencing the outcome?
(Out of how many? Need baseline/total)
- What is the timeframe? (Next year? Next 10 years? Lifetime?)
e.g. Out of 1000 people in the last 10 years

Does the risk information reasonably apply to me or my patient?
- Age/sex/lifestyle similar enough to apply results, need to dissect paper

How does this risk compare with other risks?
- Perspective- which risk should I do something about? Personal decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

questions to ask when you see messages about risk reduction (5)

A

Reduced risk of what?

  • What outcome?
  • How much do you care about it?

How big is the risk reduction?

  • What are my chances if I don’t get treatment?
  • Starting and modified risks

Does the risk reduction information reasonably apply to me?
- Is the study based on people like you (or your patients)?

Any downsides?

  • Life threatening side effects? (Mental health. Need to think of other side for patient)
  • Time/cost/hassle

Is the benefit (risk reduction) worth the downsides?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

starting and modified risks in drug studies

A

are the chances of the outcome in the untreated and treated groups

those who did not take the drug and those that did

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

2 by 2 - contingency tables

A

Putting numbers into table

Rows – groups

  • Both groups got a placebo pill
  • group 1 had normal brushing
  • group 2 had perio treatment

Modified risk – is given treatment, what we are interested in (group 2)

need total for each group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

issue with relative risk reductions

A

Makes even small risk reductions sound big

  • We then overestimate the benefit
  • Relative Risks that seem large might not mean much if starting risk is small

absolute risk reduction is more representative
FRAMING

i. e. 4.9% down to 0.8% = 84% reduction in risk of premature birth
4. 9% - 0.8% = 4.1% is the absolute risk reduction (difference)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

(absolute) Risk difference

A

Difference in risk between groups

good outcome measure

  • Risk in paracetamol group= 40/63= 63%
  • Risk in placebo group=5/27= 18%
  • Risk Difference = 63% - 18% = 45% more patients experienced pain relief in the paracetamol group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

(absolute) Risk difference when there is no difference in modified and control group

A

0

  • No benefit between the 2 conditions (take away from each other – no difference)
  • cannot straddle as unsatisfied of evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

A

The number of patients you would need to treat to prevent one patient from developing the disease/ condition/ outcome
- Numerically: 1/ Absolute Risk Difference

e. g. NNT for paracetamol = 1/ 0.45 = 2.22 (round up, measured in people)
- Would need to treat 3 people with paracetamol post-operatively to have one person experience pain relief of >50% in 4 hours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

risk ratio/relative risk

A

How many times more likely is a participant in the paracetamol group to experience pain relief than a participant in the placebo group?
The risk of 50% pain relief after 4 h in placebo group = 5/27 = 18%
The risk of 50% pain relief after 4h in paracetamol group = 40/63 = 63%

Risk in paracetamol group / Risk in placebo group
- 63/ 18 = 3.42

A participant in the paracetamol group is 3.42 times more likely to experience pain relief than a participant in the placebo group.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

risk ratio/relative risk value is the risks in both groups were equal (no benefit)

A

1

  • value of no difference (1:1
  • cannot straddle as unsatisfied of evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

odds ratio

A

Ratio of odds of pain relief in both groups (usually intervention/control)

Odds of pain relief in paracetamol group = 40 (pain relief)/23 = 1.74

Odds of pain relief in placebo group = 5 (pain relief)/ 22 = 0.23

Odds ratio = 1.74/0.23 = 7.56

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

odds ratio value were there would be no benefit between the 2 groups

A

1

  • value of no difference (1:1)
  • cannot straddle as unsatisfied of evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

difference between odds and risk ratio

A

OR only approximates RR when the outcome is rare

  • OR tends to overestimate
  • the RR as in this case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

confidence intervals

A

Confidence intervals quantify the level of uncertainty for the population of interest

Sampling introduces uncertainty, don’t know how will affect rest of population

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

confidence intervals for risk ratio

A

A confidence interval tells us the range of values that a true population treatment effect (e.g. RR) is likely to lie (subject to a number of assumptions)

28
Q

what value can a CI not straddle for risk ratio

A

1
“value of no difference” between treatments indicates that
- there is insufficient evidence for a difference between the treatment and control group in the population

29
Q

things to query once read the published study

A
  • Much research is based on weak science
  • Many results are disseminated too early – trial not fully completed
  • Is there any science behind the numbers?
  • How good is the science?
  • Some research only makes a weak case for the message – be sceptic
  • Some research makes a strong case

Treatments shown to fight diseases in test tubes won’t necessarily translate to humans (bench science in petri dishes, isn’t just a building block to clinical trial which will be benefit to patient)

Treatments that work in animals often don’t have the same results in people – Dolly the Sheep – positive benefit in animals may not translate to humans

be sceptical about treatments that have only been proven in animal or lab studies

30
Q

observational uncontrolled studies

A

Researchers watch what happens to a group of people

  • A group of patients has disease A and is treated with drug X
  • No control group

The researchers observe how many get better

  • No intervention
  • Has the treatment caused them to survive or something else attributed?
31
Q

controlled studies

A

Cohort or case control
- Treatment better than control group – shows treatment may be beneficial

Researchers observe what happens to people in different situations-without intervening

32
Q

randomised controlled trials

A

patients randomly split into 2 groups-one gets intervention the other placebo (TAU)

splitting into 2 groups randomly – equal chance of being in one group or the other

Any differences at follow-up caused by intervention

33
Q

evidence levels

A
  • systematic reviews and meta analysis
  • randomised controlled trials
  • cohort studies
  • case-control studies
  • cross-sectional surveys
  • ecological studies
  • case series and case reports
  • ideas editorials and opinions

higher: experimental interventions
lower: observational, non-interventional

34
Q

case report/ case series

A

A report on a single patient or series of patients with an outcome of interest
- No control group is involved

35
Q

case report/case series disadvantages

A
  • Cannot demonstrate valid statistical associations

- Lack of control group

36
Q

cross sectional study

A

The observation of a defined population at a single point in time (or time interval) snapshot

Exposure and outcome are determined at the same time
- Can see relationship which may be incorrect as collected at one point e.g. asthma and smoking (cannot determine what came first)

37
Q

cross sectional study used for

A
  • Estimating prevalence of a disease e.g. caries in Scottish schools
  • Investigate potential risk factors – can’t say actual link as cannot measure prospectively
38
Q

case report/ case series used for

A
  • Identify new disease outcome e.g. when e-cigarettes issue arise, drug for morning sickness in 70s
  • Hypothesis generation a hunch/feeling of a link, lead onto a trial
39
Q

cross sectional study disadvantages

A
  • Causality
  • Confounding – measure one thing but other factors contribute e.g. healthy diet, less likely to smoke, more exercise etc
  • Recall bias - inaccurate
40
Q

case-control study

A

The study of people with a disease and a suitable control group of people without the disease

  • Looks back in time at exposure to a particular risk factor in both groups
  • retrospective is most common, look back at previous exposures

See if a higher prevalence between case and control group of risk factor

41
Q

case-control study used for

A

looking at potential causes of disease

42
Q

case-control study disadvantages

A
  • Confounding
  • Recall /selection bias
  • Selection of controls differences between clinicians decisions
    = Time relationships (did exposure occur before disease? Didn’t can’t have caused it)

See if a higher prevalence between case and control group of risk factor
- Well conducted is excellent but hard to carry out
Rare disease is hard to recruit (need a huge population to identify cases)
- Recruit and look back retrospectively

43
Q

cohort study

A

Establish a group of individuals in population

  • Measure exposures (through questionnaires, examinations etc)
  • Follow up over a period of time

Identify those that develop disease (outcome of interest) –not know at start what you are going to capture e.g. 1990s baby cohort captured obesity crisis

Measure as exposure happening and measure at event so not relying on recall bias – good but time and labour expensive

44
Q

cohort study used for

A

Estimating incidence of disease
– number of new cases of disease over a period of time that has developed

Investigating causes of disease
– when disease and exposure occurred is recorded

Determining prognosis

Timing and direction of events
– understand when things may have caused disease

45
Q

cohort study disadvantages

A
  • Controls difficult to identify
  • Confounding
  • Blinding difficult
  • For rare diseases- need large samples
  • Very expensive and time consuming
46
Q

randomised controlled trials

A

Sometimes referred to as a Clinical Trial

RCTs considered the gold standard study design

  • For effectiveness and efficacy
  • Provides strongest evidence on effectiveness of treatments

Particularly useful for clinical studies – need to see for grounds on changing practice
- Measure baseline of groups before trial

Small groups as can’t afford large groups and wouldn’t be ethical

47
Q

4 design elements of randomised controlled trials

A

Specification of participants (inclusion/ exclusion criteria)

Control/ Comparison groups
– what will be difference between groups

Randomisation
– allows to separate groups fairly and randomly that can be compared – difference are random, equality across groups so only treatment criteria

Blinding/ Masking
– administrator, patient and analyser don’t know the different groups

48
Q

inclusion/exclusion criteria

A

Age
– very young or old have slightly different physiological factors so may not be appropriate to include

Disease severity/ diagnosis

Unambiguous – 100% clear in criteria
- Exact definitions

How you will know if the results of the trial are relevant to your patients

49
Q

comparison/ control group

A

Existence of a comparison group

  • Placebo
  • Current standard treatment (TAU)

Why?
- People often get better on their own
Need control to compare – what would happen without treatment

50
Q

randomisation

A

How participants/ subjects/ patients are allocated to treatments.
- To minimise Bias

Assign participant to one of the two groups
- Researcher nor participant has influence over allocation

Randomisation should be performed by computer, not up to people as easily manipulated (minimise bias and influence on results)

Only systematic difference between the arms of a trial are the treatments themselves

51
Q

why would the researcher not carry out and allocate randomised groups?

A

because selectively choose to make drug look favourable

52
Q

why would the patient not allocate their randomised group?

A

because want treatment

53
Q

Random allocation of participant to treatment ensures

A

Each individual entered into trial has equal chance of being allocated to any treatment arm (paracetamol / placebo)

54
Q

allocation concealment (selection bias)

A

A technique used to prevent selection bias by concealing the allocation sequence from those assigning participants to intervention groups, until the moment of assignment.

Allocation concealment prevents researchers from (unconsciously or otherwise) influencing which participants are assigned to a given intervention group.

55
Q

what does allocation concealment in RCT prevent?

A

researchers from (unconsciously or otherwise) influencing which participants are assigned to a given intervention group.

56
Q

blinding/MASKING

A

If the participant or researcher is aware of which treatment is given this may influence the results
- look, taste, smell, action be the same – no difference

needs to be blind to:

  • Participant
  • administrator of treatment
  • Assessor of outcome
  • Data analyst
57
Q

advantages of RCTs

A

Provide strongest and most direct epidemiologic evidence for causality

58
Q

4 disadvantages of RCTs

A

More difficult to design and conduct than observational studies

  • ethical issues
  • feasibility
  • costs

Still some risk of bias and generalisibility often limited

Not suitable for all research questions – pregnant women, elderly generally excluded

Non-blinded RCTs may overestimate treatment effects e.g. estimates of effect from trials with inadequately concealed allocation have been 40% larger than clinical trials with adequately concealed random allocation

59
Q

summary of cohort study

A

Participants are recruited to a study and followed up over time
Exposures and disease are measured prospectively
- No intervention – don’t manipulate end point
- Start with anyone and follow

60
Q

summary of RCT

A

Participants are allocated by chance to different interventions and followed up and outcomes assessed

61
Q

summary of case-series report (case study report)

A

Description of the medical history of one or more patients

62
Q

summary of cross-sectional study

A

Observational study that analyses data collected from a population, or a representative subset, at a specific point in time

  • Survey
  • No longitudinal aspect
  • No intervention/trial
63
Q

summary of systematic review and/or meta analysis

A

All the evidence for RCTs looking at effectiveness of a particular treatment are synthesised

64
Q

summary of case control study

A

People with a disease (cases) are matched to those without it (control) and earlier exposure to different factors are compared

  • Start with outcomes – look back at exposures (get association)
  • Quicker as already have outcomes
  • Can’t assess prevalence in population
65
Q

how to decide on which study design to use?

A

variety of study designs may be appropriate for a particular clinical question,

need to use the Evidence Levels pyramid / table
and question the feasibility of conducting such a study to determine what is most appropriate.

66
Q

4 key study design features of RCTs

A

inclusion/exclusion criteria

comparison/control

randomisation

blinding

BDS2 PMHP (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions