Case Study 1 Clause Samples

Case Study 1. In Case study 1, adherent patients were reported to have a higher odd of achieving 25% or more reduction in lipid panel levels relative to non-adherent patients controlling for potential confounding factors. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, et al.36 reported similar findings in that patients who were adherence (MPR ≥ 0.80) had a significant reduction in LDL and non-HDL level relative to non- adherent patients in a veteran population. The use of multiple imputation did not change the conclusion of the complete-case analysis and crude analysis. However, it increased the sample size of the study and improved precision on the confidence limits when compared to the complete-case analysis. It also provided supporting evidence that the conclusions were appropriate and unaffected by missing data.
View Source
Case Study 1. In Case study 1, there was a moderate amount of missing data that ranged from 16% to 19% for individual variables. In the multivariate models, the initial sample size of 7,739 subjects was reduced to 6,074 (~22% missing) due to missing data. Crude analysis was performed to provide a reference for comparison with the complete-case analysis and multiple imputation method. The conclusions from the complete-case analysis were similar to the crude analysis. Further comparisons between the conclusions of the multiple imputation method and complete-case analysis were also similar controlling for age, BMI, gender, baseline lipid values, comorbid conditions (diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, angina, vascular disease), statin use, ethnicity, and starting medication count. In all scenarios, there were significant associations between adherence and achieving 25% reduction in lipid panel levels.
View Source
Case Study 1. ▇▇▇▇▇, a 45 year old female, works as a primary school teacher. She has been divorced from her husband for six months, and lives with her three children, aged 5, 7, and 9. She has been dating a man in her neighborhood, and reports him as her only new sex partner. She presents to the health facility today because her husband was recently diagnosed with TB, and she was told to come for HIV testing. Her last HIV test was during ANC, when she was pregnant with her last child. It was negative. She has a history of high blood pressure that is well managed with medication. Her HIV test is positive.
View Source
Case Study 1. The purpose of Case study 1 was to evaluate the impact of adherence on lipid panel changes (25% reduction from baseline for LDL, TC, and non-HDL). Adherence to statin medication was based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), the main exposure variable in the multivariate regression model. Lipid panel changes were measured at 12 months after initiation of a statin prescription and included low-density lipoproteins (LDL), non-high-density lipoprotein (non- HDL), and triglycerides (TG). Adherence was the main exposure variable of interest and was categorized into adherent or non- adherent based on an arbitrary MPR threshold level of 0.80. Patients who were at or above the threshold were considered adherent; patients who were below the threshold were considered non- adherent. MPR is a surrogate marker for adherence and does not indicate that the patient ingested the medication; however, several studies have reported that it provides an accurate depiction of patient adherence using pharmacy claims data.63,64 MPR was calculated as the number of days supplied of prescription medication divided by days of observation.63,64 MPR was right-skewed; however it was assumed that this would not violate the assumptions of the multiple logistic regression. The dependent variable was change in lipid panel levels which included LDL, non-HDL, and TG. Although these outcomes were continuous, the study categorized them into achieving a 25% reduction from baseline which is considered a clinically significant change.65,66 This level of reduction has been associated with improved clinical outcomes.
View Source

Related to Case Study 1

  • The Study 1The parties must comply with, and conduct the Study in accordance with, the Protocol and any conditions of the Reviewing HREC. In addition the parties must comply with the following, as applicable:

  • Feasibility Study Buyer is granted the right to conduct engineering and/or market and economic feasibility studies of the Property and a physical inspection of the Property, including studies or inspections to determine the existence of any environmental hazards or conditions (collectively, the “Feasibility Study”) during the period (the “Feasibility Period”) commencing on the Effective Date and ending at 5:00 p.m., Central Time, on the June 3, 2010. With Seller’s permission, after Seller has received advance notice sufficient to permit it to schedule in an orderly manner Buyer’s examination of the Property and to provide at least 24-hours’ advance written notice to any affected tenants, Buyer or its designated agents may enter upon the Property during normal business hours for purposes of analysis or other tests and inspections which may be deemed necessary by Buyer for the Feasibility Study. Buyer or its designated representative must be accompanied by a designated representative of Seller or have received Seller’s written permission prior to entering upon the Property in connection with Buyer’s Feasibility Study; provided, however, Buyer may not enter into any space leased by any tenant without being accompanied by a designated representative of Seller. Seller agrees to make its representative reasonably available during normal business hours. Buyer will not alter the physical condition of the Property or conduct invasive testing without notifying Seller of its requested tests, and obtaining the written consent of Seller to any physical alteration of the Property or invasive testing. Buyer will utilize commercially reasonable diligence to conduct or cause to be conducted all inspections and tests in a manner and at times which will not unreasonably interfere with any tenant’s use and occupancy of the Property. If Buyer determines, in its sole judgment, that the Property is not suitable for any reason for Buyer’s intended use or purpose, or is not in satisfactory condition, then Buyer may terminate this Contract by written notice to Seller prior to expiration of the Feasibility Period, in which case the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Money (other than the Option Money) will be returned to Buyer, and neither party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder other than as set forth herein with respect to rights or obligations which survive termination. If this Contract is not terminated pursuant to this Section 5(a), then after expiration of the Feasibility Period, after Seller has received advance notice sufficient to permit it to schedule in an orderly manner Buyer’s examination of the Property and to provide at least 24-hours’ advance written notice to any affected tenants, Buyer or its designated agents may enter upon the Property during normal business hours. Buyer or its designated representative must be accompanied by a designated representative of Seller or have received Seller’s written permission prior to entering upon the Property; provided, however, Buyer may not enter into any space leased by any tenant without being accompanied by a designated representative of Seller. If this Contract is not timely terminated pursuant to this Section 5(a), Buyer’s right to terminate this Contract pursuant to this Section 5(a) and any and all objections with respect to the Feasibility Study will be deemed to have been waived by Buyer for all purposes.

  • Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).

  • Phase 2 Phase 2 is expected to consist of Member Nodes and a select number of Nodes operated by non-Members. The non-Member Nodes will be required to comply with Node hosting terms as set forth by the Council, which may be amended from time to time (the “General Node Terms”).