Little is known about researchers' understanding of confidence intervals (CIs) and standard error (SE) bars. Authors of journal articles in psychology, behavioral neuroscience, and medicine were invited to visit a Web site where they adjusted a figure until they judged 2 means, with error bars, to be just statistically significantly different (p < .05). Results from 473 respondents suggest that many leading researchers have severe misconceptions about how error bars relate to statistical significance, do not adequately distinguish CIs and SE bars, and do not appreciate the importance of whether the 2 means are independent or come from a repeated measures design. Better guidelines for researchers and less ambiguous graphical conventions are needed before the advantages of CIs for research communication can be realized.

No abstract

No abstract

Demand for critical care among older patients is increasing in many countries. Assessment of frailty may inform discussions and decision making, but acute illness and reliance on proxies for history-taking pose particular challenges in patients who are critically ill. Our aim was to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale for assessing frailty in patients admitted to critical care. We conducted a prospective, multi-centre study comparing assessments of frailty by staff from medical, nursing and physiotherapy backgrounds. Each assessment was made independently by two assessors after review of clinical notes and interview with an individual who maintained close contact with the patient. Frailty was defined as a Clinical Frailty Scale rating > 4. We made 202 assessments in 101 patients (median (IQR [range]) age 69 (65-75 [60-80]) years, median (IQR [range]) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 19 (15-23 [7-33])). Fifty-two (51%) of the included patients were able to participate in the interview; 35 patients (35%) were considered frail. Linear weighted kappa was 0.74 (95%CI 0.67-0.80) indicating a good level of agreement between assessors. However, frailty rating differed by at least one category in 47 (47%) cases. Factors independently associated with higher frailty ratings were: female sex; higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score; higher category of pre-hospital dependence; and the assessor having a medical background. We identified a good level of agreement in frailty assessment using the Clinical Frailty Scale, supporting its use in clinical care, but identified factors independently associated with higher ratings which could indicate personal bias.

Dental schools around the world face new challenges that raise issues with regard to how they are governed, led and managed. With rapid societal changes, including globalization and consumerism, the roles of universities and their funding have become intensely debated topics. When financial burdens on universities increase, so does the pressure on dental schools. This is exacerbated by the relative expense of running dental schools and also by the limited understanding of both university managers and the public of the nature and scope of dentistry as a profession. In these circumstances, it is essential for dental schools to have good systems of leadership and management in place so that they can not only survive in difficult times, but flourish in the longer term. This paper discusses the concept of governance and how it relates to leadership, management and administration in dental schools and hospitals. Various approaches to governance and management in dental schools on different continents and regions are summarized and contrasted. A number of general governance and leadership issues are addressed. For example, a basic principle supported by the Working Group is that an effective governance structure must link authority and responsibility to performance and review, i.e. accountability, and that the mechanism for achieving this should be transparent. The paper also addresses issues specific to governing, leading and managing dental schools. Being a dean of a modern dental school is a very demanding role and some issues relating to this role are raised, including: dilemmas facing deans, preparing to be dean and succession planning. The importance of establishing a shared vision and mission, and creating the right culture and climate within a dental school, are emphasized. The Working Group advocates establishing a culture of scholarship in dental schools for both teaching and research. The paper addresses the need for effective staff management, motivation and development, and highlights the salience of good communication. The Working Group suggests establishing an advisory board to the dean and school, including lay persons and other external stakeholders, as one way of separating governance and management to some extent and providing some checks and balances within a dental school. Several other suggestions and recommendations are made about governance, management and leadership issues, including the need for schools to promote an awareness of their roles by good communication and thereby influence perceptions of others about their roles and values.