Search

Your search keyword '"Vernooij, Robin"' showing total 16 results
Start Over Author "Vernooij, Robin" Publisher bmj publishing group
16 results on '"Vernooij, Robin"'

1. Evaluation of bone marrow-derived cell-based therapies in the hindlimb ischaemia model: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Unit Opleiding Aios, Circulatory Health, Nefro Vasculaire Geneeskunde, MS Nefrologie, Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells, MMB opleiding Arts microbioloog, Infection & Immunity, van Rhijn-Brouwer, Femke Christina Ching Chuan, Vernooij, Robin Wilhelmus Maria, Wever, Kimberley, Schilt, Iris, Fledderus, Joos Ougust, Verhaar, Maria Christina, Gremmels, Hendrik, Unit Opleiding Aios, Circulatory Health, Nefro Vasculaire Geneeskunde, MS Nefrologie, Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells, MMB opleiding Arts microbioloog, Infection & Immunity, van Rhijn-Brouwer, Femke Christina Ching Chuan, Vernooij, Robin Wilhelmus Maria, Wever, Kimberley, Schilt, Iris, Fledderus, Joos Ougust, Verhaar, Maria Christina, and Gremmels, Hendrik

Published
2021

2. Current practices and challenges in adaptation of clinical guidelines: a qualitative study based on semistructured interviews

Author

MS Nefrologie, Song, Yang, Ballesteros, Monica, Li, Jing, Martínez García, Laura, Niño de Guzmán, Ena, Vernooij, Robin W M, Akl, Elie A, Cluzeau, Francoise, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, MS Nefrologie, Song, Yang, Ballesteros, Monica, Li, Jing, Martínez García, Laura, Niño de Guzmán, Ena, Vernooij, Robin W M, Akl, Elie A, Cluzeau, Francoise, and Alonso-Coello, Pablo

Published
2021

3. Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

MS Nefrologie, Julius Centrum, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Siemieniuk, Reed A C, Kum, Elena, Qasim, Anila, Zeraatkar, Dena, Ge, Long, Han, Mi Ah, Sadeghirad, Behnam, Agarwal, Arnav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Darzi, Andrea J, Devji, Tahira, Ghadimi, Maryam, Honarmand, Kimia, Izcovich, Ariel, Khamis, Assem, Lamontagne, Francois, Loeb, Mark, Marcucci, Maura, McLeod, Shelley L, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Neary, John D, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Rada, Gabriel, Rochwerg, Bram, Switzer, Charlotte, Tendal, Britta, Thabane, Lehana, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin W M, Viteri-García, Andrés, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Ye, Zhikang, Guyatt, Gordon H, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, MS Nefrologie, Julius Centrum, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Siemieniuk, Reed A C, Kum, Elena, Qasim, Anila, Zeraatkar, Dena, Ge, Long, Han, Mi Ah, Sadeghirad, Behnam, Agarwal, Arnav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Darzi, Andrea J, Devji, Tahira, Ghadimi, Maryam, Honarmand, Kimia, Izcovich, Ariel, Khamis, Assem, Lamontagne, Francois, Loeb, Mark, Marcucci, Maura, McLeod, Shelley L, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Neary, John D, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Rada, Gabriel, Rochwerg, Bram, Switzer, Charlotte, Tendal, Britta, Thabane, Lehana, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin W M, Viteri-García, Andrés, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Ye, Zhikang, Guyatt, Gordon H, and Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

Published
2021

4. Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

MS Nefrologie, Siemieniuk, Reed Ac, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Díaz Martinez, Juan Pablo, Kum, Elena, Qasim, Anila, Zeraatkar, Dena, Izcovich, Ariel, Mangala, Sophia, Ge, Long, Han, Mi Ah, Agoritsas, Thomas, Arnold, Donald, Ávila, Camila, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Cusano, Ellen, Darzi, Andrea J, Devji, Tahira, Foroutan, Farid, Ghadimi, Maryam, Khamis, Assem, Lamontagne, Francois, Loeb, Mark, Miroshnychenko, Anna, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Rada, Gabriel, Rochwerg, Bram, Switzer, Charlotte, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Guyatt, Gordon H, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, MS Nefrologie, Siemieniuk, Reed Ac, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Díaz Martinez, Juan Pablo, Kum, Elena, Qasim, Anila, Zeraatkar, Dena, Izcovich, Ariel, Mangala, Sophia, Ge, Long, Han, Mi Ah, Agoritsas, Thomas, Arnold, Donald, Ávila, Camila, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Cusano, Ellen, Darzi, Andrea J, Devji, Tahira, Foroutan, Farid, Ghadimi, Maryam, Khamis, Assem, Lamontagne, Francois, Loeb, Mark, Miroshnychenko, Anna, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Rada, Gabriel, Rochwerg, Bram, Switzer, Charlotte, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Guyatt, Gordon H, and Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

Published
2021

5. Effectiveness of contact tracing apps for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

Author

Epi Methoden Team 5, Epi Infectieziekten Team 1, Infection & Immunity, JC onderzoeksprogramma Infectieziekten, MS Nefrologie, Epi Methoden, Cancer, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Epi Infectieziekten Team 2, Jenniskens, Kevin, Bootsma, Martin C J, Damen, Johanna A A G, Oerbekke, Michiel S, Vernooij, Robin W M, Spijker, René, Moons, Karel G M, Kretzschmar, Mirjam E E, Hooft, Lotty, Epi Methoden Team 5, Epi Infectieziekten Team 1, Infection & Immunity, JC onderzoeksprogramma Infectieziekten, MS Nefrologie, Epi Methoden, Cancer, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Epi Infectieziekten Team 2, Jenniskens, Kevin, Bootsma, Martin C J, Damen, Johanna A A G, Oerbekke, Michiel S, Vernooij, Robin W M, Spijker, René, Moons, Karel G M, Kretzschmar, Mirjam E E, and Hooft, Lotty

Published
2021

6. Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis : the comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol

Author

Blankestijn, Peter J, Fischer, Kathrin I, Barth, Claudia, Cromm, Krister, Canaud, Bernard, Davenport, Andrew, Grobbee, Diederick E, Hegbrant, Jörgen, Roes, Kit C, Rose, Matthias, Strippoli, Giovanni Fm, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Woodward, Mark, de Wit, G Ardine, Bots, Michiel L, Blankestijn, Peter J, Fischer, Kathrin I, Barth, Claudia, Cromm, Krister, Canaud, Bernard, Davenport, Andrew, Grobbee, Diederick E, Hegbrant, Jörgen, Roes, Kit C, Rose, Matthias, Strippoli, Giovanni Fm, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Woodward, Mark, de Wit, G Ardine, and Bots, Michiel L

Published
2020

7. Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis: the comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol

Author

MS Nefrologie, Circulatory Health, Cardiovasculaire Epi Team 9, JC onderzoeksprogramma Cardiovasculaire Epidemiologie, Biostatistiek Onderzoek, HEE Team 1, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Cardiovasculaire Epi Team 5, Blankestijn, Peter J, Fischer, Kathrin I, Barth, Claudia, Cromm, Krister, Canaud, Bernard, Davenport, Andrew, Grobbee, Diederick E, Hegbrant, Jörgen, Roes, Kit C, Rose, Matthias, Strippoli, Giovanni Fm, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Woodward, Mark, de Wit, G Ardine, Bots, Michiel L, MS Nefrologie, Circulatory Health, Cardiovasculaire Epi Team 9, JC onderzoeksprogramma Cardiovasculaire Epidemiologie, Biostatistiek Onderzoek, HEE Team 1, JC onderzoeksprogramma Methodologie, Cardiovasculaire Epi Team 5, Blankestijn, Peter J, Fischer, Kathrin I, Barth, Claudia, Cromm, Krister, Canaud, Bernard, Davenport, Andrew, Grobbee, Diederick E, Hegbrant, Jörgen, Roes, Kit C, Rose, Matthias, Strippoli, Giovanni Fm, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Woodward, Mark, de Wit, G Ardine, and Bots, Michiel L

Published
2020

8. Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

MS Nefrologie, Siemieniuk, Reed Ac, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Ge, Long, Zeraatkar, Dena, Izcovich, Ariel, Kum, Elena, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Rochwerg, Bram, Lamontagne, Francois, Han, Mi Ah, Liu, Qin, Agarwal, Arnav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Darzi, Andrea, Devji, Tahira, Fang, Bo, Fang, Carmen, Flottorp, Signe Agnes, Foroutan, Farid, Heels-Ansdell, Diane, Honarmand, Kimia, Hou, Liangying, Hou, Xiaorong, Ibrahim, Quazi, Loeb, Mark, Marcucci, Maura, McLeod, Shelley L, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Neary, John D, Qasim, Anila, Rada, Gabriel, Riaz, Irbaz Bin, Sadeghirad, Behnam, Sekercioglu, Nigar, Sheng, Lulu, Sreekanta, Ashwini, Switzer, Charlotte, Tendal, Britta, Thabane, Lehana, Tomlinson, George, Turner, Tari, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Viteri-García, Andrés, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Ye, Zhikang, Guyatt, Gordon H, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, MS Nefrologie, Siemieniuk, Reed Ac, Bartoszko, Jessica J, Ge, Long, Zeraatkar, Dena, Izcovich, Ariel, Kum, Elena, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Rochwerg, Bram, Lamontagne, Francois, Han, Mi Ah, Liu, Qin, Agarwal, Arnav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Chu, Derek K, Couban, Rachel, Darzi, Andrea, Devji, Tahira, Fang, Bo, Fang, Carmen, Flottorp, Signe Agnes, Foroutan, Farid, Heels-Ansdell, Diane, Honarmand, Kimia, Hou, Liangying, Hou, Xiaorong, Ibrahim, Quazi, Loeb, Mark, Marcucci, Maura, McLeod, Shelley L, Motaghi, Sharhzad, Murthy, Srinivas, Mustafa, Reem A, Neary, John D, Qasim, Anila, Rada, Gabriel, Riaz, Irbaz Bin, Sadeghirad, Behnam, Sekercioglu, Nigar, Sheng, Lulu, Sreekanta, Ashwini, Switzer, Charlotte, Tendal, Britta, Thabane, Lehana, Tomlinson, George, Turner, Tari, Vandvik, Per O, Vernooij, Robin Wm, Viteri-García, Andrés, Wang, Ying, Yao, Liang, Ye, Zhikang, Guyatt, Gordon H, and Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

Published
2020

9. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.

Author

Devji, Tahira, Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Qasim, Anila, Phillips, Mark, Johnston, Bradley C., Devasenapathy, Niveditha, Zeraatkar, Dena, Bhatt, Meha, Xuejing Jin, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Urquhart, Olivia, Foroutan, Farid, Schandelmaier, Stefan, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Vernooij, Robin W. M., Hsiaomin Huang, Rizwan, Yamna, Siemieniuk, Reed, Lytvyn, Lyubov, and Patrick, Donald L.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis: the comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol.

Author

Blankestijn, Peter J., Fischer, Kathrin I., Barth, Claudia, Cromm, Krister, Canaud, Bernard, Davenport, Andrew, Grobbee, Diederick E., Hegbrant, Jörgen, Roes, Kit C., Rose, Matthias, Strippoli, Giovanni F. M., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Woodward, Mark, de Wit, G. Ardine, and Bots, Michiel L.

Abstract

Introduction End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD. Methods and analysis This international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness. Ethics and dissemination The CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a clinical practice guideline.

Author

Tikkinen, Kari A. O., Dahm, Philipp, Lytvyn, Lyubov, Heen, Anja F., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Siemieniuk, Reed A. C., Wheeler, Russell, Vaughan, Bill, Fobuzi, Awah Cletus, Blanker, Marco H., Junod, Noelle, Sommer, Johanna, Stirnemann, Jérôme, Manabu Yoshimura, Auer, Reto, MacDonald, Helen, Guyatt, Gordon, Vandvik, Per Olav, and Agoritsas, Thomas

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Author

Vernooij, Robin W. M., Lytvyn, Lyubov, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Albarqouni, Loai, Canelo-Aybar, Carlos, Campbell, Karen, and Agoritsas, Thomas

Abstract

Objectives To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017. Eligibility criteria Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. results We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels. Conclusion The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening. trial registration number CRD42018095585. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews

Author

University of Helsinki, Clinicum, Akl, Elie A., Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Neumann, Ignacio, Johnston, Bradley C., Sun, Xin, Briel, Matthias, Busse, Jason W., Ebrahim, Shanil, Granados, Carlos E., Iorio, Alfonso, Irfan, Affan, Martinez Garcia, Laura, Mustafa, Reem A., Ramirez-Morera, Anggie, Selva, Anna, Sola, Ivan, Sanabria, Andrea Juliana, Tikkinen, Kari A. O., Vandvik, Per O., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Zazueta, Oscar E., Zhou, Qi, Guyatt, Gordon H., Alonso-Coello, Pablo, University of Helsinki, Clinicum, Akl, Elie A., Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Neumann, Ignacio, Johnston, Bradley C., Sun, Xin, Briel, Matthias, Busse, Jason W., Ebrahim, Shanil, Granados, Carlos E., Iorio, Alfonso, Irfan, Affan, Martinez Garcia, Laura, Mustafa, Reem A., Ramirez-Morera, Anggie, Selva, Anna, Sola, Ivan, Sanabria, Andrea Juliana, Tikkinen, Kari A. O., Vandvik, Per O., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Zazueta, Oscar E., Zhou, Qi, Guyatt, Gordon H., and Alonso-Coello, Pablo

Abstract

Objectives: To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2010, and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. We randomly selected 98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Teams of 2 reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data independently and in duplicate using standardised, piloted forms with accompanying instructions. We conducted regression analyses to explore factors associated with using complete case analysis and with judging the risk of bias associated with missing participant data. Results: Of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p Conclusions: Though Cochrane reviews are somewhat less problematic, most Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews fail to adequately report and handle missing data, potentially resulting in misleading judgements regarding risk of bias.

Published
2015

14. Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

Author

Martínez García, Laura, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, de Guzman, Ena Niño, Superchi, Cecilia, Ballesteros, Monica, McFarlane, Emma, Penman, Katrina, Posso, Margarita, Figuls, Marta Roqué i., Sanabria, Andrea Juliana, Selva, Anna, Vernooij, Robin W. M., and Alonso-Coello, Pablo

Abstract

Introduction Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG. Methods and analysis To develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience. We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool. At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders. The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Guideline: prostate cancer screening with PSA test.

Author

Tikkinen, Kari A. O., Dahm, Philipp, Lytvyn, Lyubov, Heen, Anja F., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Siemieniuk, Reed A. C., Wheeler, Russell, Vaughan, Bill, Fobuzi, Awah Cletus, Blanker, Marco H., Junod, Noelle, Sommer, Johanna, Stirnemann, Jérôme, Auer, Reto, Berger, Zackary, MacDonald, Helen, Guyatt, Gordon, Vandvik, Per Olav, and Agoritsas, Thomas

Published
2018

16. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a clinical practice guideline

Author

Tikkinen, Kari A O, Dahm, Philipp, Lytvyn, Lyubov, Heen, Anja F, Vernooij, Robin W M, Siemieniuk, Reed A C, Wheeler, Russell, Vaughan, Bill, Fobuzi, Awah Cletus, Blanker, Marco H, Junod, Noelle, Sommer, Johanna, Stirnemann, Jérôme, Yoshimura, Manabu, Auer, Reto, MacDonald, Helen, Guyatt, Gordon, Vandvik, Per Olav, and Agoritsas, Thomas

Subjects
610 Medicine & health, 360 Social problems & social services, 3. Good health

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results