Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
114,424
result(s) for
"comparative research"
Sort by:
Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research?
Registry-based randomized controlled trials are defined as pragmatic trials that use registries as a platform for case records, data collection, randomization, and follow-up. Recently, the application of registry-based randomized controlled trials has attracted increasing attention in health research to address comparative effectiveness research questions in real-world settings, mainly due to their low cost, enhanced generalizability of findings, rapid consecutive enrollment, and the potential completeness of follow-up for the reference population, when compared with conventional randomized effectiveness trials. However several challenges of registry-based randomized controlled trials have to be taken into consideration, including registry data quality, ethical issues, and methodological challenges. In this article, we summarize the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research related to registry-based randomized controlled trials.
Journal Article
Social Learning
Many animals, including humans, acquire valuable skills and knowledge by copying others. Scientists refer to this as social learning. It is one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of behavioral research and sits at the interface of many academic disciplines, including biology, experimental psychology, economics, and cognitive neuroscience.Social Learningprovides a comprehensive, practical guide to the research methods of this important emerging field. William Hoppitt and Kevin Laland define the mechanisms thought to underlie social learning and demonstrate how to distinguish them experimentally in the laboratory. They present techniques for detecting and quantifying social learning in nature, including statistical modeling of the spatial distribution of behavior traits. They also describe the latest theory and empirical findings on social learning strategies, and introduce readers to mathematical methods and models used in the study of cultural evolution. This book is an indispensable tool for researchers and an essential primer for students.
Provides a comprehensive, practical guide to social learning researchCombines theoretical and empirical approachesDescribes techniques for the laboratory and the fieldCovers social learning mechanisms and strategies, statistical modeling techniques for field data, mathematical modeling of cultural evolution, and more
eBook
Democratization and research methods
\"Democratization and Research Methods is a coherent survey and critique of both democratization research and the methodology of comparative politics. The two themes enhance each other: the democratization literature illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of various methodological approaches, and the critique of methods makes sense of the vast and bewildering democratization field. Michael Coppedge argues that each of the three main approaches in comparative politics - case studies and comparative histories, formal modeling and large-sample statistical analysis - accomplishes one fundamental research goal relatively well: 'thickness', integration and generalization, respectively. Throughout the book, comprehensive surveys of democratization research demonstrate that each approach accomplishes one of these goals well but the other two poorly. Chapters cover conceptualization and measurement, case studies and comparative histories, formal models and theories, political culture and survey research, and quantitative testing. The final chapter summarizes the state of knowledge about democratization and lays out an agenda for multi-method research\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses
Many analyses of observational data are attempts to emulate a target trial. The emulation of the target trial may fail when researchers deviate from simple principles that guide the design and analysis of randomized experiments. We review a framework to describe and prevent biases, including immortal time bias, that result from a failure to align start of follow-up, specification of eligibility, and treatment assignment. We review some analytic approaches to avoid these problems in comparative effectiveness or safety research.
Journal Article
The art and craft of comparison
\"Is it possible to compare French presidential politics with village leadership in rural India? Most social scientists - even those of opposing methodological and philosophical persuasions - are united in thinking such unlikely juxtapositions are not feasible. We think they are. To explain why and how, The Art of Comparison is a call to arms for interpretivists to embrace creatively comparative work. Initial chapters explain, defend and illustrate the comparative interpretive approach. But it is also an engaging, hands-on guide to doing comparative interpretive research. The chapters cover design, fieldwork, analysis and writing. The advice in each revolves around 'rules of thumb', grounded in experience, and illustrated through stories and examples from our own research in different contexts around the world\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Caveats for the Use of Operational Electronic Health Record Data in Comparative Effectiveness Research
The growing amount of data in operational electronic health record systems provides unprecedented opportunity for its reuse for many tasks, including comparative effectiveness research. However, there are many caveats to the use of such data. Electronic health record data from clinical settings may be inaccurate, incomplete, transformed in ways that undermine their meaning, unrecoverable for research, of unknown provenance, of insufficient granularity, and incompatible with research protocols. However, the quantity and real-world nature of these data provide impetus for their use, and we develop a list of caveats to inform would-be users of such data as well as provide an informatics roadmap that aims to insure this opportunity to augment comparative effectiveness research can be best leveraged.
Journal Article
Re-Orientation of Clinical Research in Traumatic Brain Injury: Report of an International Workshop on Comparative Effectiveness Research
During the National Neurotrauma Symposium 2010, the DG Research of the European Commission and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH/NINDS) organized a workshop on comparative effectiveness research (CER) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). This workshop reviewed existing approaches to improve outcomes of TBI patients. It had two main outcomes: First, it initiated a process of re-orientation of clinical research in TBI. Second, it provided ideas for a potential collaboration between the European Commission and the NIH/NINDS to stimulate research in TBI. Advances in provision of care for TBI patients have resulted from observational studies, guideline development, and meta-analyses of individual patient data. In contrast, randomized controlled trials have not led to any identifiable major advances. Rigorous protocols and tightly selected populations constrain generalizability. The workshop addressed additional research approaches, summarized the greatest unmet needs, and highlighted priorities for future research. The collection of high-quality clinical databases, associated with systems biology and CER, offers substantial opportunities. Systems biology aims to identify multiple factors contributing to a disease and addresses complex interactions. Effectiveness research aims to measure benefits and risks of systems of care and interventions in ordinary settings and broader populations. These approaches have great potential for TBI research. Although not new, they still need to be introduced to and accepted by TBI researchers as instruments for clinical research. As with therapeutic targets in individual patient management, so it is with research tools: one size does not fit all.
Journal Article