Refine
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Introduction: Hip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse.
Methods and analysis: The iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1:1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30±3, 180±45 and 365±60.
Ethics and dissemination: iHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.
Trial registration number: DRKS00013644; Pre-results
Investigators in the cognitive neurosciences have turned to Big Data to address persistent replication and reliability issues by increasing sample sizes, statistical power, and representativeness of data. While there is tremendous potential to advance science through open data sharing, these efforts unveil a host of new questions about how to integrate data arising from distinct sources and instruments. We focus on the most frequently assessed area of cognition - memory testing - and demonstrate a process for reliable data harmonization across three common measures. We aggregated raw data from 53 studies from around the world which measured at least one of three distinct verbal learning tasks, totaling N = 10,505 healthy and brain-injured individuals. A mega analysis was conducted using empirical bayes harmonization to isolate and remove site effects, followed by linear models which adjusted for common covariates. After corrections, a continuous item response theory (IRT) model estimated each individual subject’s latent verbal learning ability while accounting for item difficulties. Harmonization significantly reduced inter-site variance by 37% while preserving covariate effects. The effects of age, sex, and education on scores were found to be highly consistent across memory tests. IRT methods for equating scores across AVLTs agreed with held-out data of dually-administered tests, and these tools are made available for free online. This work demonstrates that large-scale data sharing and harmonization initiatives can offer opportunities to address reproducibility and integration challenges across the behavioral sciences.