000			03213nam a22001937a 4500
008			210521b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9783319102917
020			_a9783319102924
100			_aMohsen El Kossi _910811
245			_aInforming Clinical Practice in Nephrology _bThe Role of RCTs
260			_aLondon. New York _bSpringer International Publishing Switzerland _c2015
300			_a246 Pages
500			_aIncludes References
520			_aNephrology practice has been informed over the last quarter of a century by a large number of clinical trials that translated animal experimentation findings into the bedside. These clinical trials have also informed and shaped the Nephrology Practice Guidelines worldwide. However, a closer look at many of these clinical trials finds them wanting and reveals major flaws that make their conclusions challengeable and their subsequent impact of practice misguided. Consequently, our practice and guidelines have been shaped in some instances by clinical trials that are inconclusive at best and misleading in their conclusions and recommendations at worst. This has prompted the editors of this monograph along with its publisher to call upon experts in the various fields of nephrology to undertake a thorough and critical appraisal and evaluation of the published clinical trials that have shaped our practice in recent times in general nephrology, dialysis, and transplantation. We have also included a critical appraisal template based on standard guidelines including the CONSORT statement to allow for a comparative evaluation of clinical trials within one area of nephrology and also across its different fields: General Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation. Of note, the implementation of the Critical Appraisal template was left entirely to individual authors’ evaluations. Parameters Yes No Comment Validity Is the Randomization Procedure well described? +1 −1 Double blinded? +2 −2 Is the sample size calculation described/adequate? +3 −3 Does it have a hard primary endpoint? +1 −1 Is the endpoint surrogate? −2 0 Is the follow-up appropriate? +1 −1 Was there a Bias? −2 +2 Is the drop out >25 %? −1 +1 Is the analysis ITT? +3 −3 Utility/Usefulness Can the findings be generalized? +1 −1 Was the NNT <100? +1 −1 Score … The critical appraisals of mostly randomized clinical trials (RCT) have revealed the strength but also the weakness of the published literature upon which we base our current practice. We hope that the monograph will alert nephrologists worldwide to the value of published RCT and provide them with a most valuable reference that assists them in their understanding and evaluation of key publications in nephrology. This in turn should allow them to better judge the literature upon which they base their daily clinical practice and avoid misplaced and unfounded assumptions. The quality of the clinical practice and health care we deliver as nephrologists depend to a large extent on the quality of the RCT and publications we base our knowledge and guidelines upon.
654			_xNephrology
700			_aArif Khwaja _910812
700			_aMeguid El Nahas _910813
942			_2ddc _cBK
999			_c13871 _d13871