Describe your reactions to Eli Clare’s beliefs about curing disabilities. Include at least two quotes of the author’s words in your reaction. Response should be no more than 2 pages. Your thoughts maybe in note form… do not need to be written as a formal paper. You will use these notes to guide your participation in class discussion. I will read them to gain insights into your reactions.
http://eliclare.com/
journal health club powerpoint
General information that is typically included synthesized to prepare a journal club is below:
I. Study Overview a. Title b. Authors (AMA format first three authors) c. Citation (AMA format) d. Funding II. Background Information a. What is this drug/condition? Should know the pathophysiology of the condition and the mechanism of the drugs involved. b. Relevance (Why do we care about this trial? How will this help anyone?) i. Two (2) relevant trials – Name and discuss two relevant clinical trials that validate the purpose of the study and/or expand on current clinical practice. Briefly discuss the primary outcome, treatment groups, study design/methods, conclusion, and your interpretation of why this information is important to your journal club presentation ii. What gap is this study covering? iii. Why is this study important/relevant? (This would improve care by…) c. Should know recommendations of current practice guidelines III. Objective/Purpose a. What is the purpose of this study and what are the authors trying to prove? IV. Methods a. Trial design (please know exactly how to describe your design) b. Location – centers, countries, populations c. IRB Approval d. Inclusion Criteria – the people that were included in the study
e.Exclusion Criteria –the things that KICKED OUT the people that were included. This is NOT just the opposite of thestudy.
i. If the inclusion criteria for a pregnancy study is pregnant women, the exclusion is NOT men. The exclusion would be something that would “kick out” an included pregnant woman…such as a pregnant woman with hypertension. f. Subjects – who was originally target for the study g. Primary endpoint(s) h. Secondary endpoint(s) i. Follow up – After initial treatment, what periods of time did we check in? j. Duration k. Populations (baseline characteristics) l. Arms (what treatment/control groups are present) V. Statistical Analysis a. what test did they use and was it correct? VI. Results (Needs to be detailed and specific) a. Primary endpoint(s) – Include percentages, CI, P value etc. b. Secondary endpoint(s) – Include percentages, CI, P value etc. c. Adverse events – include percent, frequency, etc. VII. Conclusion a. Author’s conclusion – what did the author conclude or think about the study? b. Your conclusion – what do you conclude about the study? c. Study goal met – was the original objective met? (go back to purpose/objective) VIII. Strengths/Weaknesses (“Detailed” Critiques) – this is one of the most important sections. Some critiques (such as population size, funding by company and number of participants) are “surface” critiques and don’t require much study. More “detailed” critiques include issues that you found based on additional analyzation and research. You must include at least 5 “detailed” critiques and a few examples are found below. However, please be prepared to answer questions regarding the study as it relates to strengths/weaknesses. a. Was the study design the most appropriate? b. Did the population/region match the condition? (i.e. 3% black population in Type II DM trial) c. Did the trial meet their goal? d. Was the data misleading? e. What should have been improved in the methods? (i.e. Was this a lipid based trial testing a PSCK9 inhibitor in patients that were NOT on high dose statins? Why not let them max out a statin 1st?) f. Did they use the right statistical analysis? g. Did the study contradict current practice or further clinical practice h. It the conclusion of the trial statistically and clinically significant? (i.e. the new blood pressure med that proves superiority over ACEI but only lowers BP by 4mmHg)
i. Can the drug be afforded? (sure Hepatitis C meds are curing, but the cost is $84,000 for the full regimen. Is it practical?) j. Efficacy compared to new drugs. (When Edoxoban came out for Anticoagulation, what benefit did it have over Xarelto, Apixaban, or Dabigatran?) k. Funding – is the source of the funding questionable? IX. Further study a. How could this study be furthered or improved in any way? (i.e. now that this new drug has come to market, in the future it would be good to have a head to head trial with this drug and the standard of care/guideline based therapy.) X. References (in AMA format on the last slide and in text references on each slide) Formatting (PowerPoint) • References on each slide – When applicable, references should be listed at the bottom of every slide (in AMA format). For example, if you refer to a specific trial, you should include the citation based on AMA format. • All figures and tables must be clear and readable. It is recommended that you make your own tables and figures. • References should be included in AMA format on its own slide and numbered
journal health club powerpoint
General information that is typically included synthesized to prepare a journal club is below:
I. Study Overview a. Title b. Authors (AMA format first three authors) c. Citation (AMA format) d. Funding II. Background Information a. What is this drug/condition? Should know the pathophysiology of the condition and the mechanism of the drugs involved. b. Relevance (Why do we care about this trial? How will this help anyone?) i. Two (2) relevant trials – Name and discuss two relevant clinical trials that validate the purpose of the study and/or expand on current clinical practice. Briefly discuss the primary outcome, treatment groups, study design/methods, conclusion, and your interpretation of why this information is important to your journal club presentation ii. What gap is this study covering? iii. Why is this study important/relevant? (This would improve care by…) c. Should know recommendations of current practice guidelines III. Objective/Purpose a. What is the purpose of this study and what are the authors trying to prove? IV. Methods a. Trial design (please know exactly how to describe your design) b. Location – centers, countries, populations c. IRB Approval d. Inclusion Criteria – the people that were included in the study
e.Exclusion Criteria –the things that KICKED OUT the people that were included. This is NOT just the opposite of thestudy.
i. If the inclusion criteria for a pregnancy study is pregnant women, the exclusion is NOT men. The exclusion would be something that would “kick out” an included pregnant woman…such as a pregnant woman with hypertension. f. Subjects – who was originally target for the study g. Primary endpoint(s) h. Secondary endpoint(s) i. Follow up – After initial treatment, what periods of time did we check in? j. Duration k. Populations (baseline characteristics) l. Arms (what treatment/control groups are present) V. Statistical Analysis a. what test did they use and was it correct? VI. Results (Needs to be detailed and specific) a. Primary endpoint(s) – Include percentages, CI, P value etc. b. Secondary endpoint(s) – Include percentages, CI, P value etc. c. Adverse events – include percent, frequency, etc. VII. Conclusion a. Author’s conclusion – what did the author conclude or think about the study? b. Your conclusion – what do you conclude about the study? c. Study goal met – was the original objective met? (go back to purpose/objective) VIII. Strengths/Weaknesses (“Detailed” Critiques) – this is one of the most important sections. Some critiques (such as population size, funding by company and number of participants) are “surface” critiques and don’t require much study. More “detailed” critiques include issues that you found based on additional analyzation and research. You must include at least 5 “detailed” critiques and a few examples are found below. However, please be prepared to answer questions regarding the study as it relates to strengths/weaknesses. a. Was the study design the most appropriate? b. Did the population/region match the condition? (i.e. 3% black population in Type II DM trial) c. Did the trial meet their goal? d. Was the data misleading? e. What should have been improved in the methods? (i.e. Was this a lipid based trial testing a PSCK9 inhibitor in patients that were NOT on high dose statins? Why not let them max out a statin 1st?) f. Did they use the right statistical analysis? g. Did the study contradict current practice or further clinical practice h. It the conclusion of the trial statistically and clinically significant? (i.e. the new blood pressure med that proves superiority over ACEI but only lowers BP by 4mmHg)
i. Can the drug be afforded? (sure Hepatitis C meds are curing, but the cost is $84,000 for the full regimen. Is it practical?) j. Efficacy compared to new drugs. (When Edoxoban came out for Anticoagulation, what benefit did it have over Xarelto, Apixaban, or Dabigatran?) k. Funding – is the source of the funding questionable? IX. Further study a. How could this study be furthered or improved in any way? (i.e. now that this new drug has come to market, in the future it would be good to have a head to head trial with this drug and the standard of care/guideline based therapy.) X. References (in AMA format on the last slide and in text references on each slide) Formatting (PowerPoint) • References on each slide – When applicable, references should be listed at the bottom of every slide (in AMA format). For example, if you refer to a specific trial, you should include the citation based on AMA format. • All figures and tables must be clear and readable. It is recommended that you make your own tables and figures. • References should be included in AMA format on its own slide and numbered
Purpose is to persuade the audience that voter registration should be automatic when a person turns eighteen. Should include
Writing Assignment Help Purpose is to persuade the audience that voter registration should be automatic when a person turns eighteen.
Should include as many as possible of the following:
•introduction paragraph
•thesis statement
•supporting paragraphs
•strong conclusion
•topic sentences
•sentence variation
•transitions
Anthro 2A: Perusall: Rachels–Cultural Relativism
Perusall annotation of required readings:
Minimum 5 annotations (comment or response to other comments) per reading,
I screenshot some of the paragraphs from Perusall. Please pick 5 sentences or paragraphs to annotate. Just write about 3-5 sentences for each paragraph for annotation. Please copy-paste the paragraph or sentence you are annotating. Thank you.
health article summary
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING BASED OFF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Title:
Authors: Citation: Type of Study: Background: Objective: Methodology: Statistical Analysis: Results: Conclusion: Critique: Strengths Weaknesses
3 References: