Investigating Variation in Replicability Klein, Richard A.; Ratliff, Kate A.; Vianello, Michelangelo ...
Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany),
01/2014, Letnik:
45, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare
in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and
contemporary effects across 36 ...independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the
aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect - imagined contact reducing
prejudice - showed weak support for replicability. And two effects - flag priming
influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification - did not
replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus
international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of
this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself
than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.
Responds to the comments made by Monin and Oppenheimer (see record 2014-37961-001), Ferguson et al. (see record 2014-38072-001), Crisp et al. (see record 2014-38072-002), and Schwarz & Strack (see ...record 2014-38072-003) on the current authors original article (see record 2014-20922-002). The current authors thank the commentators for their productive discussion of the Many Labs project. They entirely agree with the main theme across the commentaries: direct replication does not guarantee that the same effect was tested. As noted by Nosek and Lakens (2014, p. 137), ‘‘direct replication is the attempt to duplicate the conditions and procedure that existing theory and evidence anticipate as necessary for obtaining the effect.’’ Attempting to do so does not guarantee success, but it does provide substantial opportunity for theoretical development building on empirical evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
Commentaries and Rejoinder on Monin, Benoît; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.; Ferguson, Melissa J. ...
Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany),
05/2014, Letnik:
45, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
While direct replications such as the “Many Labs” project are extremely valuable in testing the reliability of published findings across laboratories, they reflect the common reliance in psychology ...on single vignettes or stimuli, which limits the scope of the conclusions that can be reached. New experimental tools and statistical techniques make it easier to routinely sample stimuli, and to appropriately treat them as random factors. We encourage researchers to get into the habit of including multiple versions of the content (e.g., stimuli or vignettes) in their designs, to increase confidence in cross-stimulus generalization and to yield more realistic estimates of effect size. We call on editors to be aware of the challenges inherent in such stimulus sampling, to expect and tolerate unexplained variability in observed effect size between stimuli, and to encourage stimulus sampling instead of the deceptively cleaner picture offered by the current reliance on single stimuli.
Commentaries and Rejoinder on Klein et al. (2014) Monin, Benoît; Oppenheimer, Daniel M; Ferguson, Melissa J ...
Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany),
01/2014, Letnik:
45, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Presents a series of commentaries and the rejoinder regarding the original article by Klein et al. "Investigating variation in replicability: A ‘‘Many Labs’’ replication project," (see record ...2014-20922-002), which tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
This dataset is from the Many Labs Replication Project 1 in which 13 effects were replicated across 36 samples and over 6,000 participants. Data from the replications are included, along with ...demographic variables about the participants and contextual information about the environment in which the replication was conducted. Data were collected in-lab and online through a standardized procedure administered via an online link. The dataset is stored on the Open Science Framework website. These data could be used to further investigate the results of the included 13 effects or to study replication and generalizability more broadly. Keywords: replication, generalizability, context
Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established.
To ...assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.
The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.
The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication.
On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years IQR, 46-59; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar.
Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.
A previous American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement on asthma in the workplace was published in 1995. The current Consensus Statement updates the previous one based on additional ...research that has been published since then, including findings relevant to preventive measures and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA).
A panel of experts, including allergists, pulmonologists, and occupational medicine physicians, was convened to develop this Consensus Document on the diagnosis and management of work-related asthma (WRA), based in part on a systematic review, that was performed by the University of Alberta/Capital Health Evidence-Based Practice and was supplemented by additional published studies to 2007.
The Consensus Document defined WRA to include occupational asthma (ie, asthma induced by sensitizer or irritant work exposures) and WEA (ie, preexisting or concurrent asthma worsened by work factors). The Consensus Document focuses on the diagnosis and management of WRA (including diagnostic tests, and work and compensation issues), as well as preventive measures. WRA should be considered in all individuals with new-onset or worsening asthma, and a careful occupational history should be obtained. Diagnostic tests such as serial peak flow recordings, methacholine challenge tests, immunologic tests, and specific inhalation challenge tests (if available), can increase diagnostic certainty. Since the prognosis is better with early diagnosis and appropriate intervention, effective preventive measures for other workers with exposure should be addressed.
The substantial prevalence of WRA supports consideration of the diagnosis in all who present with new-onset or worsening asthma, followed by appropriate investigations and intervention including consideration of other exposed workers.
The two current major staging systems in use for Lewy body disorders fail to classify up to 50% of subjects. Both systems do not allow for large numbers of subjects who have Lewy-type ...α-synucleinopathy (LTS) confined to the olfactory bulb or who pass through a limbic-predominant pathway that at least initially bypasses the brainstem. The results of the current study, based on examination of a standard set of ten brain regions from 417 subjects stained immunohistochemically for α-synuclein, suggest a new staging system that, in this study, allows for the classification of all subjects with Lewy body disorders. The autopsied subjects included elderly subjects with Parkinson’s disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, incidental Lewy body disease and Alzheimer’s disease with Lewy bodies, as well as comparison groups without Lewy bodies. All subjects were classifiable into one of the following stages: I. Olfactory Bulb Only; IIa Brainstem Predominant; IIb Limbic Predominant; III Brainstem and Limbic; IV Neocortical. Progression of subjects through these stages was accompanied by a generally stepwise worsening in terms of striatal tyrosine hydroxylase concentration, substantia nigra pigmented neuron loss score, Mini Mental State Examination score and score on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part 3. Additionally, there were significant correlations between these measures and LTS density scores. It is suggested that the proposed staging system would improve on its predecessors by allowing classification of a much greater proportion of cases.
In the 10 months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the United States on January 20, 2020 (1), approximately 13.8 million cases and 272,525 deaths ...have been reported in the United States. On October 30, the number of new cases reported in the United States in a single day exceeded 100,000 for the first time, and by December 2 had reached a daily high of 196,227.* With colder weather, more time spent indoors, the ongoing U.S. holiday season, and silent spread of disease, with approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons (2), the United States has entered a phase of high-level transmission where a multipronged approach to implementing all evidence-based public health strategies at both the individual and community levels is essential. This summary guidance highlights critical evidence-based CDC recommendations and sustainable strategies to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These strategies include 1) universal face mask use, 2) maintaining physical distance from other persons and limiting in-person contacts, 3) avoiding nonessential indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, 4) increasing testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons, 5) promptly identifying, quarantining, and testing close contacts of persons with known COVID-19, 6) safeguarding persons most at risk for severe illness or death from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, 7) protecting essential workers with provision of adequate personal protective equipment and safe work practices, 8) postponing travel, 9) increasing room air ventilation and enhancing hand hygiene and environmental disinfection, and 10) achieving widespread availability and high community coverage with effective COVID-19 vaccines. In combination, these strategies can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, long-term sequelae or disability, and death, and mitigate the pandemic's economic impact. Consistent implementation of these strategies improves health equity, preserves health care capacity, maintains the function of essential businesses, and supports the availability of in-person instruction for kindergarten through grade 12 schools and preschool. Individual persons, households, and communities should take these actions now to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from its current high level. These actions will provide a bridge to a future with wide availability and high community coverage of effective vaccines, when safe return to more everyday activities in a range of settings will be possible.
PDF
