Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Research Eval > Review > Flashcards

Review Flashcards

1
Q

Describe Case report?

A

narrative in professional literature describing a single incident

Usually novel/unusual

Might include vitals, SSx, etc.

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

Case series?

A

Multiple patients/case report

Individual cases sharing a commonality

Used to:

Examine adverse eventse/effects

Catalog new diseases/outbreaks

Determine feasibility/safety of tx/intervention

Discuess potential efficacy

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

Observational studies?

A

No intervention on behalf of author/researcher

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

Descriptive?

A

Descriptive study doesn’t have a comparison group

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

Observational?

A

case-control, cohort, etc.

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

Cohort study types

A

Prospective

Retrospective

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

Prospective advs/disadvs?

A

Can measure incidence (rate) of disease
Can calculate Relative Risk

Highest validity of observational study design

Expensive, takes time

Determine risk/incidences

Don’t want to use for rare diseases

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

Retrospective advs/disadvs?

A

Information is already there… Gather outcomes, then pick the exposures (all from already-compiled records)

quicker, cost efficient, can determine risk but not as good as prospective

Harder to get causation because records weren’t made for research in mind.

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

Case-control studies think…

A

Categorical.. yes/no to exposure (Not necessarily considering time, whereas retrospective has more of a time component)

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

Case-control study

A

Case - has outcome/disease

Control - shoud NOT have outcome/disease but from same population

(Measures of association for case-control studies…?)

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

(Measures of association for case-control studies…?

A

???

[can’t determine prevalance or incidence, can’t calculate relative risk]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Selection bias

A

inappropriate selection of cases or controls.

Cases: Can be selected from a variety of sources: Hospitals, Clinics, Registries. If cases are selected from a single source, and risk factors from that facility may not be generalizable to all patients with that disease.

Controls: Ideally, you want controls to come from the same reference population that cases are derived from. An inappropriate control group can have the opposite effect and obscure an important link between disease and its cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case-control are good for?

A

Rare diseases

Evaluate many exposures

Good for initial/explanatory idea

Simple/fast/inexpensive

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

Cross-sectional

A

“slice in time”

Prevalence (How many people today, have this disease?)

Selecting disease and outcome at same time (e.g., survey given today… similar to case-control but only one snippet of time)

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

Disease focused? Case control or cross-sectional?

A

Case control (because you’re selecting the disease… can’t get prevalence becasue you’ve selected for the disease)

Odds ratio from cross sectional and case-control study

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

Odds ratio from?

A

Cross sectional

Case-control

Cohort study (but relative risk is preferred)

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

Relative risk or odds ratio?

A

Relative risk

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

Randomized control trial

A
  • Reduce biases of researchers through randomization (however, researchers will still pick the pool to be randomized)
  • Compare those w/w/o trreatment
  • should do an intention to treat analysis (gives a more conservative estimate… especially if people aren’t compliant, e.g., they might alter their medication if they’re in the control group and prefer the novel, “better” intervention)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Good for external validity?

A

Cohort

Observational study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Case-crossover study

A

Assess same patient before/after medication (with a “washout” period in between)

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

Efficacy?

A

How effective is the medication in an ideal, controlled environment

22
Q

Systematic review?

A

Appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence to answer a given research question!

A “systematic review” is a thorough, comprehensive, and explicit way of interpreting the medical literature
A “meta-analysis” is a statistical approach to combine the data derived from several selected studies
Both are used for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs)

23
Q

Meta analysis

A

systematic review BUT you incorporate all the odds ratio and generate an aggregated OR (more power)

24
Q

Scatterplot

A

Bivariate

1 = positive correlation
0 = no correlation
-1 = negative correlation
25
Q

Prevalence?

A

Amount of people in populationwho have the disease

26
Q

Incidence?

A

Number of NEW cases over specified amount of time

27
Q

Cure/death?

A

Prevalence goes down

28
Q

Incidence outpaces cure/death?

A

Prevalance goes up

29
Q

Sensitivity?

A

Ability to capture those who have the disease (positive)

30
Q

Specificity?

A

Ability to determine who doesn’t have the disease

31
Q

Best for ruling out disease?

A

sensitivity (high sensitivity, and you test negative we can assume you’re negative)

32
Q

Sequential testing? Two stage?

A

Net result: decrease in sensitivity, but increase in specificity

33
Q

Simultaneous testing?

A

Net result: increase in sensitivity, decrease in specificity

34
Q

Screening?

A

Consequential diseases, treatable diseases, prevalent diseases

Wouldn’t screen for diseases that are inconsequential or self-limiting

35
Q

Likelihood ratio?

A

How likely a positive test is in a patient with disease vs patient without disease/

36
Q

Null hypothesis?

A

“there’s no difference between tx A and tx B”

37
Q

Alternative hypothesis

A

“Research question”

“A is better than B”

38
Q

p-value less than .05?

A

Reject null hypothesis, accepting alternative hypothesis

Less than a 5% that we got these results by chance alone

39
Q

Clinical vs statistical significance

A

p-value of less than .05 DOESN’T MEAN anything clinically significant

40
Q

Type 1 error?

A

Rejected null hypothesis when null hypothesis was correct

41
Q

Type 2 error

A

Failed to reject null hypothesis when the null hypothesis was wrong

42
Q

Type 1 is worse

A

ok cool thanks man got it

43
Q

Measures of central tendency?

A

Mode is least important

mean, median, mode

44
Q

*Odds ratio?

A

cross sectional, case control, cohort

45
Q

*Relative risk?

A

cohort

46
Q

Confidence interval?

A

How confident we are that the estimate is between the range mentioned

wider is worse. Once it crosses a range of 1, it’s not statistically significant

47
Q

Confounding?

A

Related to variable and outcome but NOT IN CAUSAL PATHWAY

48
Q

Interviewer bias

A

Leading questions (mitigate by blinding the interviewer)

49
Q

What’s EBM?

A

Clinical expertise + literature/reviews/research + patient values

50
Q

Case reports/case series?

A

at bottom of EBM pyramid

51
Q

Expert opinion?

A

Bottom of EBM pyramid

Research Eval (9 decks)

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