top of page

faulconbridgepandc Group

Public·40 members

Body Of Evidence Free Download PORTABLE



One of the biggest growth areas in e-mental health resources has been the development and use of mobile mental health apps for smartphones and tablet devices. Such apps are being downloaded at increasing rates, but there have been questions about their efficacy and the research methodologies used to examine this. A review of the major app marketplaces, the Apple App Store and Google Play store, was conducted to locate apps claiming to offer a therapeutic treatment for depression and/or anxiety, and have research evidence for their effectiveness, according to their app store descriptions. App store descriptions were also analyzed to determine whether the app had been developed with mental health expert input; whether they had been developed in association with a government body, academic institution, or medical facility; and, whether or not they were free to download. Overall, 3.41% of apps had research to justify their claims of effectiveness, with the majority of that research undertaken by those involved in the development of the app. Other results indicated that 30.38% of shortlisted apps claimed to have expert development input; 20.48% had an affiliation with a government body, academic institution, or medical facility; and, 74.06% were free to download. Future research must consider other methodologies that may facilitate more research being completed on a greater number of apps, and future development needs to incorporate greater levels of input by mental health experts. Ways in which app stores could play a key role in encouraging more scientific research into the effectiveness of the mental health apps they sell are discussed.




Body of Evidence Free Download



Companies that produce or manufacture chemicals, trade associations that may represent those companies, or authors who receive financial support from the chemical industry can be expected to gain financially from demonstrating the chemicals they are evaluating are safe for use in commerce. Financial incentives, therefore, may sway industry and industry-sponsored scientists to alter the research process and distortions in the interpretation of evidence to bias findings regarding the harms of the chemicals they evaluate. Such findings could be used to limit, delay, or obstruct regulation of these chemicals, or further market the benefits of these chemicals to drive demand, production, and sale. Therefore, the potential effect of industry influence in the research process must be accounted for when evaluating a body of evidence, which can only be achieved through 1) full disclosure of financial COI of a study and 2) the use of methodological approaches such as with risk of bias tools that consider industry sponsorship and author COI as a risk of bias to the validity of the study results discussed below in the Section Consider financial conflict of interest as a risk of bias so that manufactured doubt is not used to delay protective actions.


Despite this growing body of evidence, indoor air pollution remains largely unregulated. In this report, we synthesize the last two decades of research and offer recommendations for policymakers, researchers, health care professionals, and the public to work to swiftly to mitigate the health risks associated with gas stoves. Air pollution is preventable, and we hope this report can spur the necessary action to protect public health.


We propose a conceptualization of cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies. The main aim of this conceptualization is to clarify the distinction between cohort studies and case series. We discuss the potential impact of the proposed conceptualization on the body of evidence and workload.


We propose a conceptualization of cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies. The main objective of this conceptualization is to clarify the distinction between cohort studies and case series in systematic reviews, including non-randomized comparative studies. We discuss the potential impact of the proposed conceptualization on the body of evidence and workload.


In the medical literature, it is likely that more retrospective mislabelled cohort studies (comparison planned after data collection) based on routinely collected data (e.g., chart review, review of radiology databases) than prospectively planned (i.e., comparisons planned before data collection) and wrongly labelled cohort studies can be found. Thus, it can be assumed that the wrongly labelled studies tend to have lower methodological quality than studies that already include a comparison. This aspect should be considered in decisions about including studies that must be reanalysed. In research areas in which randomized controlled trials or large planned prospective and well-conducted cohort studies can be expected (e.g., risk factors for widespread diseases), the approach is less promising for enriching the body of evidence. Consequently, in these areas, the additional effort might not be worthwhile.


We proposed a conceptualization for cohort studies with multiple exposures that ensures a clear distinction from case series. In this conceptualization, all studies that contain sufficient data to conduct a reanalysis and not only studies with a pre-existing analytic comparison are classified as cohort studies and are considered appropriate for inclusion in systematic reviews. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic reviews exist that reanalyse (mislabelled) case series to create cohort studies. The outlined approach is a method that can potentially enrich the body of evidence and subsequently enhance confidence in effect estimates and the strengths of conclusions. However, the enrichment of the body of evidence should be balanced against the additional workload.


One aim of the Scoliosis Society (SOSORT) should be; to help develop a body of research regarding the outcomes of conservative and operative treatment as well, and to highlight the problems of treatment indications in patients with AIS and other spinal deformities. Another aim is to help to improve the safety of patients who have surgery. By producing evidence-based information that can be used to develop guidelines that could aid both professionals and patients in making decisions about surgical and conservative options.


Although 'Scoliosis' is the official journal of the SOSORT and is the main forum for experts in the field of conservative management of patients with spinal deformities, there needs to be more wide spread attempt to develop a fuller body of evidence focussing on spine surgery as well.


The thing that was quite striking was that despite all of the articles that have been written over a thirty-year period on the topic of clinical librarianship (more than thirty studies were reviewed in each article), the authors were unable to draw any compelling conclusions demonstrating that clinical librarian programs actually have the kinds of positive outcomes on patient care that their proponents hope for from them. Most of the articles under review were descriptive. When they were evaluative, the evaluations were idiosyncratic enough that they could not be combined in any compelling meta-analysis. Despite all of the effort that has been put into developing clinical librarian programs and writing articles about them, we are not much closer to demonstrating their value than we were over a quarter century ago. We have many articles; we do not have a body of evidence.


Nonetheless, a growing number of published reports does not automatically translate into building a body of evidence. When I talk with potential authors about structuring their papers, one of the things that I always emphasize is the need to make sure that their work is soundly rooted in the existing literature of the topic. In the best papers, the authors work carefully to ensure that this is in fact done. If you look at the paper in this issue by Dee and Stanley [3], for example, you will see that, throughout their discussion section, they have carefully linked their results to previous work, pointing out when their results seem to confirm earlier studies and where their results differ. This is extremely useful but is something I do not often see in articles that we publish.


Many opportunities exist in health sciences librarianship to work on building a body of evidence. Two of the most important pieces of library research, documenting the value of libraries, are colloquially known as the King study [6] and the Rochester study [7]. In a quick check of the Web of Science citation database, I see that the King study has been cited at least 51 times (since 1995, the earliest year for which I have electronic access) and the Rochester study 87 times. But a quick scan of the titles of those citing papers indicates that virtually none of them document attempts to replicate and verify the results. Just think how much easier it would make your life, on the day that your hospital administrator is musing about whether or not this library stuff really matters to the bottom line, if you could present him or her with a raft of related studies, systematically analyzed, rather than the handful that you would actually be able to identify.


Without documentation of the evidence and an explanation of how you used it to reach your conclusion, you risk having your investigation challenged by management or one of the parties. Make sure your investigation report is thorough and compliant by using our free template.


In summary, while there is some evidence to suggest that creatine supplementation increases water retention, primarily attributed to increases in intracellular volume, over the short term, there are several other studies suggesting it does not alter total body water (intra or extracellular) relative to muscle mass over longer periods of time. As a result, creatine supplementation may not lead to water retention.


To date, 12 other studies have investigated the effects of creatine supplementation (i.e. doses ranging from 3-25 g/day for 6 days to 12 weeks) on testosterone. Two studies reported small, physiologically insignificant increases in total testosterone after six and seven days of supplementation [65, 66], while the remaining ten studies reported no change in testosterone concentrations. In five of these studies [67,68,69,70,71], free testosterone, which the body uses to produce DHT, was also measured and no increases were found. 041b061a72


  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    bottom of page