Methodology For Selecting Expert Groups For The Purpose Of Decision-Making Tasks

Abstract

to ≥ 3 groups which initiate double-blind active therapy at different times from baseline, preceded by 0,1, 2 or more intervals of placebo. Analytical and simulationbased investigations were conducted to compare the statistical power, required assumptions, practical considerations and economic features of the Blind Start to conventional single-arm and randomized designs. Results: Given the same number of patients, the randomized Blind Start provides equivalent statistical power for detecting changes pre-vs. post-treatment compared to a conventional single-arm design. However, by concealing treatment initiation times, the Blind Start enables more objective assessments of outcomes that are effort-based, patient-reported or subjectively assessed by investigators. In addition, compared to a conventional 2-arm randomized trial, analysis of parallel treatment and placebo groups embedded within a Blind Start design provides greater power to detect treatment effects over any fixed time interval. For example, with N= 16 and a treatment effect equal to 1 standard deviation of the outcome measure, a 4-arm Blind Start design provides 85% power in a pre-post analysis and 79% power in an analysis of embedded parallel groups. In contrast, a conventional 2-arm randomized trial provides 52% power in this scenario. Benefits of the Blind Start design come at the expense of 1) more patient-time in the trial and 2) lack of stringent control over patient status upon active treatment initiation. ConClusions: The randomized Blind Start design can improve precision for treatment effect estimation vs. parallel-group designs and reduce risk of bias vs. single-arm designs. Endpoint choice and statistical analysis strategies for the Blind Start design can maximize the assessment of treatment effects on multiple outcomes.

Quantification and Comparison of Avoidable Mortality – Causal Relations and Modification of Concepts

“…Pension expenses are supposed to increase from 11.3% to 13% of GDP, while there will exist many significant differences among countries that will be determined by structure and way of implementing the pension reforms. It requires support of effective measurements formation in a policy of each country (European Commission 2014; Gavurová, Hyránek 2013;Ivlev et al 2014;Minarik, Kraftova 2012). The changes in demographic development are reflected in population morbidity and mortality changes of the countries (Tsiachristas et al 2013;WHO 2009;Woods 2009).…”

Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system 

“…Current trends in scientifi c and technological advances are bringing a signifi cant improvements in health care as a result of creation new tools tool to support decision making process for decision-makers (DM) [8], [11], [12], [23], [27]. The experts group approach is used in health sector both clinical [28], [31] and nonclinical [5], [24], [29], [30], [32] decision-making.…”