Evaluation of the Total Design Method in a survey of Japanese dentists

Nakai, Yukie; Milgrom, Peter; Yoshida, Toshiharu; Ishihara, Chikako; Shimono, Tomoyuki

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-27

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, a study among Japanese dentists applying the Dillman Total Design Method and multi-modal survey delivery only achieved a 47% response rate in their population, compared to some surveys among dentists in the United States that had employed the Dillman approach to achieve comparably higher response rates, suggesting that portability may not apply in all settings. 20 A concern with respect to lower response rates is the increased risk of bias. While robust response rates are generally thought to provide a more accurate reflection of the larger population and minimize potential for bias, no definitive 'gold standard' response rate has been advanced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Application and Cost Saving in a Dental Survey

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To effectively achieve a robust survey response rate in a timely manner, an alternative approach to survey distribution, informed by statistical modeling, was applied to efficiently and cost-effectively achieve the targeted rate of return. Design:A prospective environmental scan surveying adoption of health information technology utilization within their practices was undertaken in a national pool of dental professionals (N=8000) using an alternative method of sampling. The piloted approach to rate of cohort sampling targeted a response rate of 400 completed surveys from among randomly targeted eligible providers who were contacted using replicated subsampling leveraging mailed surveys. Methods:Two replicated subsample mailings (n=1000 surveys/mailings) were undertaken to project the true response rate and estimate the total number of surveys required to achieve the final target. Cost effectiveness and non-response bias analyses were performed. Results:The final mailing required approximately 24% fewer mailings compared to targeting of the entire cohort, with a final survey capture exceeding the expected target. An estimated $5000 in cost savings was projected by applying the alternative approach. Non-response analyses found no evidence of bias relative to demographics, practice demographics, or topically-related survey questions. Conclusion:The outcome of this pilot study suggests that this approach to survey studies will accomplish targeted enrollment in a cost effective manner. Future studies are needed to validate this approach in the context of other survey studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Application and Cost Saving in a Dental Survey

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data on procedure conversion rate were obtained in six studies,26,29,31,38–40 which assessed 1,314 and 914 patients in chest port group and arm port group, respectively. The procedure conversion rate was significantly higher in arm port group than that in chest port group (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15–0.46; p <0.001) (Figure 4A).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for operating time, three studies including 707 patients were reported, however, one study30 presented operating time as “mean ± standard deviation”, one study39 presented as “mean and range”, and the last one31 displayed as “mean and interquartile range”. Using Hozo’s26 method, ranges were converted to estimated SD for further comparison 41. Result of the analysis of operating time revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between chest port group and arm port group (WMD −4.31; 95% CI −17.81–9.19; p =0.53), with high between-study heterogeneity ( I 2 =0.98, p <0.01) (Figure 4B).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<p>Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

Li¹,

Ma²,

Zheng³

2019

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques. Methods We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, intra-operative complications, mechanical complications, conversion rate, early port removal, and operating time. Results Thirteen comparative studies including 3,896 patients (2,176 for chest ports, and 1,720 for arm ports) were identified. The present study showed that arm port was associated with higher procedure conversion rate (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; odd ratios [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.46; p <0.001), but lower incidence of intra-operative complications (1.38% in chest port group and 0.41% in arm port group; OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07–5.29; p =0.03). There were no between-group differences with respect to total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, mechanical complications, early port removal, and operating time. Subgroup analysis of patients under 60 years revealed that no significant difference was detected in intra-operative events (1.19% in chest port group and 0.02% in arm port group, OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.74–9.08; p <0.14), indicating that age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events. Sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions of all endpoints of interest. Conclusion Arm port is associated with higher procedure conversion rate, but lower incidence of intra-operative complications, and age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events.

show abstract

“…Means were used for meta-analysis unless otherwise mentioned. If the mean was not reported by the author, the means or standard deviations were calculated as medians or ranges, respectively 22. The following data were extracted from each study: author, year, country, study period, study design, number of patients, age, gender, tumor size, mortality, morbidity, operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion, hospital stay, reoperation and long term survival including 3-year overall survival (3-OS) and 5-year overall survival (5-OS).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

Yang¹,

Xiong²,

Liu³

et al. 2019

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Materials and Methods: Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66–3.16; P =0.36), hospital stay (WMD: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.78–0.59; P =0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55–2.31; P =0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01–1.97; P =0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23–50.89; P =0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74–562.18; P =0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93–12.29; P =0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Total Design Method in a survey of Japanese dentists

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Statistical Application and Cost Saving in a Dental Survey

Statistical Application and Cost Saving in a Dental Survey

<p>Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

<p>Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About