Clinical proteomics has yielded some early positive results-the identification of potential disease biomarkers-indicating the promise for this analytical approach to improve the current state of the art in clinical practice. However, the inability to verify some candidate molecules in subsequent studies has led to skepticism among many clinicians and regulatory bodies, and it has become evident that commonly encountered shortcomings in fundamental aspects of experimental design mainly during biomarker discovery must be addressed in order to provide robust data. In this Perspective, we assert that successful studies generally use suitable statistical approaches for biomarker definition and confirm results in independent test sets; in addition, we describe a brief set of practical and feasible recommendations that we have developed for investigators to properly identify and qualify proteomic biomarkers, which could also be used as reporting requirements. Such recommendations should help put proteomic biomarker discovery on the solid ground needed for turning the old promise into a new reality.

/pdf/recommendations-for-biomarker-identification-and-3b0x6k6mkn.pdf

Recommendations for Biomarker Identification and Qualification in Clinical Proteomics

PURPOSE Peer health coaches offer a potential model for extending the capacity of primary care practices to provide self-management support for patients with diabetes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether clinic-based peer health coaching, compared with usual care, improves glycemic control for low-income patients who have poorly controlled diabetes. METHOD We undertook a randomized controlled trial enrolling patients from 6 public health clinics in San Francisco. Twenty-three patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level of less than 8.5%, who completed a 36-hour health coach training class, acted as peer coaches. Patients from the same clinics with HbA1C levels of 8.0% or more were recruited and randomized to receive health coaching (n = 148) or usual care (n = 151). The primary outcome was the differ- ence in change in HbA1C levels at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were propor- tion of patients with a decrease in HbA1C level of 1.0% or more and proportion of patients with an HbA1C level of less than 7.5% at 6 months. Data were ana- lyzed using a linear mixed model with and without adjustment for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS At 6 months, HbA1C levels had decreased by 1.07% in the coached group and 0.3% in the usual care group, a difference of 0.77% in favor of coaching (P = .01, adjusted). HbA1C levels decreased 1.0% or more in 49.6% of coached patients vs 31.5% of usual care patients (P = .001, adjusted), and levels at 6 months were less than 7.5% for 22.0% of coached vs 14.9% of usual care patients (P = .04, adjusted). CONCLUSIONS Peer health coaching signifi cantly improved diabetes control in this group of low-income primary care patients.

https://www.annfammed.org/content/annalsfm/11/2/137.full.pdf

Impact of Peer Health Coaching on Glycemic Control in Low-Income Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

[Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement].

A main challenge of educational organizations is how to foster students’ capacity to fulfill their potential. The present paper, based on educational, psychological, and organizational research, asserts that a discussion of character strengths and their development is highly relevant to this challenge. It provides an integrative overview of the relevance of character strengths to twenty-first-century schools and discusses different mechanisms that can help foster them. Character strengths—widely valued positive traits, theorized to be the basis for optimal functioning and well-being—may derive from inner tendencies, but are expected to have broad potential for development, depending on individuals’ experiences and environments. Furthermore, character strengths are closely related to twenty-first-century competencies – cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies, identified by the American National Research Council as required for thriving in contemporary life and work, and thus considered to be desirable educational outcomes. The paper first delineates the connections between twenty-first-century competencies and character strengths, demonstrating the importance of promoting them in education. Then, mechanisms for fostering development of character strengths in schools are discussed, based on a review of the literature, including mechanisms that affect students (e.g., curriculum, relationships), teachers (e.g., training, supervisors), and schools (e.g., evaluation processes, resource allocation), while considering the interplay between these different levels. The concluding part of the paper outlines an integrative model of an optimal school system, expected to foster character strengths’ use and development and discuss its applications for research and practice.

A Review of Character Strengths Interventions in Twenty-First-Century Schools: their Importance and How they can be Fostered

Background: A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Primary Objective: Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. Methods: We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (a) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines; (b) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines; and (c) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines. Results: This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist—a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical f...

The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development.

R controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted, and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating healthcare interventions. However, randomized trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigour.1 To assess a trial accurately, readers of a published report need complete, clear, and transparent information on its methodology and findings. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports neglect to provide lucid and complete descriptions of that critical information.2–4 That lack of adequate reporting fuelled the development of the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement in 19965 and its revision five years later.6–8 While those statements See related editorial on page 892.

/pdf/consort-2010-statement-updated-guidelines-for-reporting-39khf0dh6h.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

P Juhn

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials