Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Cognitive-motor interference (1)
- Dual task walking (1)
- Gait analysis (1)
- HCC (1)
- Minimal detectable change (1)
- Older adults (1)
- TACE (1)
- Verbal fluency (1)
- sorafenib (1)
- treatment (1)
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.
Background and aims: One reason for the controversial discussion of whether the dual task (DT) walking paradigm has an added value for diagnosis in clinical conditions might be the use of different gait measurement systems. Therefore, the purpose was 1) to detect DT effects of central gait parameters obtained from five different gait analysis devices in young and old adults, 2) to assess the consistency of the measurement systems, and 3) to determine if the absolut and proportional DT costs (DTC) are greater than the system-measurement error under ST. Methods: Twelve old (72.2 ± 7.9y) and 14 young adults (28.3 ± 6.2y) walked a 14.7-m distance under ST and DT at a self-selected gait velocity. Interrater reliability, precision of the measurement and sensitivity to change were calculated under ST and DT. Results: An age effect was observed in almost all gait parameters for the ST condition. For DT only differences for stride length (p < .029, ɳ2p = .239) as well as single and double limb support (p = .036, ɳ2p = .227; p = .034, ɳ2p = .218) remained. The measurement systems showed a lower absolute agreement compared to consistency across all systems. Conclusions: When reporting DT effects, the real changes in performance and random measurement errors should always be accounted for. These findings have strong implications for interpreting DT effects.
Background and Aims. Systemic treatment with sorafenib has been the standard of care (SOC) in patients with advanced Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for more than a decade. TACE has been reported to allow better local tumor control in selected patients with BCLC stage C HCC. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients with BCLC stage C HCC that were treated with sorafenib and TACE was conducted; they were compared to BCLC stage C patients treated either with TACE or sorafenib in the same period of time outside a clinical trial. Results. A total of 201 patients with BCLC stage C were identified, who were treated with either sorafenib and TACE (group A; n = 54), sorafenib (group B; n = 82) or TACE (group C; n = 65). No significant difference in baseline characteristics was observed. Time to progression was 7.0 months (95% CI: 4.3–9.7), 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.6–4.7) and 5.0 months (95% CI: 2.9–7.1) in groups A, B and C, respectively, and overall survival was 16.5 months (95% CI: 15.0–18.1), 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.0–10.8) and 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.5–13.6), respectively (group A vs. group B: p < 0.001; group A vs. group C: p = 0.0023). Adverse events of grade 3/4 occurred in 34% of patients in group A. Conclusions. Although sorafenib is a SOC in patients with BCLC stage C HCC, TACE is frequently used as an additional locoregional treatment in selected patients. This combined approach resulted in a significant overall survival benefit in selected patients, although randomized trials have not yet proven this benefit.