Week two discussion 1 replies. 1-2 paragraphs

Respond to at least two of your fellow students discussion posts. These responses must include a journal, news, or website article that critically reflects and pertains to the points of the initial post. You can either agree, disagree, or elaborate using these sources.

Week 2 Discussion 1

Rebecca Shelton (student’s name)

For This discussion board, I chose an article called,  “Clinical Relevance on Alzheimer’s Disease Endpoints.”  When looking into this article, the article talks about how delicate the minimal clinically important change can be in the study of this data. The MCID which is also known as the Minimal Clinical Important Difference. The smallest difference between two different assessments that have a possible impact on the studies is shown that can change the entirety of the data sets themselves.  

For example, “MCIC might have an important inter-individual variability and it might be dependent on the initial scores; in this case, MCIC will be lower in mild disease and higher in severe disease. In any event confidence intervals can be established experimentally and might be the most appropriate method to deal with the problem of having probabilistically uncertain cutoff scores for MCIC once these are determined. In addition, one should not forget the MCIC is scale specific. It cannot be directly transferred from one scale to another (Sampaio,2007).”

This I would infer would be a limitation in the accuracy of the data that can be collected in the determinants of the end result. In comparison, I feel that this is similar to those limitations that are listed in our textbook. Per the text, it says, “Hospital records are not designed for research. They may be a. Incomplete, illegible, or missing, or b. Variable in diagnostic quality (Celentano & Szklo, 2019).” I feel as if based on this intext quote from the text, I would infer that this falls under the hospital records, and how they can cause your data to be incomplete illegible or missing information to be able to give you a 100 percent with out a doubt inference of the date with facts to support your hypothesis.

 

References

 

Celentano, D. D., & Szklo, M. (2018). Gordis Epidemiology (6th ed.). Elsevier Limited (UK).  https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9780323552318 

Sampaio, C. (2007). CLINICAL RELEVANCE ON ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE ENDPOINTS.  The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 11(4), 316-7.  https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/clinical-relevance-on-alzheimers-disease/docview/222241622/se-2

Week 2 Discussion1

Kate Empey (student’s name)

The article I chose is about the relationship between a type of protein and screening results of gestational diabetes in pregnant women(Kianpour, et al., 2019). Systemic inflammation can be tested with a blood test that checks for C-reactive protein, or CRP. The study I chose looked at 176 pregnant female subjects in Iran and compared CRP levels, prevalence of gestational diabetes, and control subjects. The study aimed to see if CRP levels could help predict risk of developing gestational diabetes later on in pregnancy. The study found no signification correlation between CRP levels and gestational diabetes in the first trimester(Kianpour, et al., 2019). 

The textbook describes a number of limitations that are not present in the study I chose. The first limitation discussed in the textbook is recall(Celentano & Szklo, 2015). Recall is a specific issue in research conducted by interviews in which subjects are asked to remember or identify information. Recall bias occurs when the subject may have a certain bias towards the information being sought. The study I chose is a longitudinal study analyzing lab results, therefore recall and recall bias are not an issue since no interviews were conducted (Celentano & Szklo, 2015). 

The book does discuss selection bias. Selection bias includes non-participation and nonresponse, which can create bias that affect the interpretation of results (Celentano & Szklo, 2015). If more women finished the study and had tested positive for gestational diabetes with the C-reactive protein than women who did not have C-reactive protein, the results would be different (Kianpour, et al., 2019). This relates to another limitation of the study. The study had a small population of participants, leading to more chances for there to be bias in interpretation of results (Kianpour, et al., 2019). With a larger population of participants, there would be less influence in small variations between participants and results would have larger diversity of participants(Celentano & Szklo, 2015). 

References:

Celentano DD & Szklo M (2019). Epidemiology (6th edition). Elsevier. ISBN: 978-0-323-55229-5 

Kianpour, Saadatmand, F., Nematbakhsh, M., & Fahami, F. (2019). Relationship between c-reactive protein and screening test results of gestational diabetes in pregnant women referred to health centers in Isfahan in 2013-2014. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 24(5), 360–364.  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_352_14