首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Team-building intervention to improve acute stroke care - Authors' reply
【24h】

Team-building intervention to improve acute stroke care - Authors' reply

机译:团队建设干预措施以改善急性中风护理-作者的回复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

We acknowledge that there are differences between the proportion of patients initially assessed and subsequently enrolled by hospitals allocated to receive our intervention or to the control group. However, there is no evidence that this difference has caused any imbalance between the groups or biasedthe results, particularly in terms of stroke severity-a crucial predictor of patients' outcome.Having re-examined the data in response to David Barer's comments, we can confirm that, first, there were no significant differences between eligible patients who agreed to participate and those who did not in terms of stroke severity (pre-intervention cohort p=0-49; post-intervention cohort p=O-99)- Second, and more importantly, participants in the intervention and the control group were similar for age, sex, premorbid level of dependency, stroke location, stroke severity, andtime between onset of stroke symptoms and arrival at the acute stroke unit; the only differences were a lower proportion of participants who were employed full-time in the control group and a higher proportion of participants receiving thrombolysis in the control group.
机译:我们认识到,最初分配给我们进行干预的医院或对照组的最初评估和随后入组的患者比例之间存在差异。但是,没有证据表明这种差异导致了两组之间的任何不平衡或使结果有偏见,特别是在卒中严重程度方面-这是患者预后的重要预测指标。根据David Barer的评论重新检查了数据,我们可以确认,首先,同意参加的合格患者与未参加卒中严重程度的患者之间无显着差异(干预前队列p = 0-49;干预后队列p = O-99)-第二,更重要的是,干预措施的参与者和对照组在年龄,性别,病前依赖程度,中风部位,中风严重程度以及中风症状发作到急性中风病发作之间的时间相似。唯一的区别是,对照组中全职工作的参与者比例较低,而对照组中接受溶栓的参与者比例较高。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The Lancet》 |2012年第9824期|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号