Did the trial address a clearly focused issue? Yes the trial addressed a clearly focused issue.They evaluated the efficacy of two treatments for removing fluorosis stains in an area endemic for fluorosis. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised? Yes the assignment of the participants to treatments were randomised by a randomization table prepared in advance by an examiner not involved with the clinical study. The participants were first grouped according to level of severity of fluorosis and then randomised into two treatment group: GI - enamel microabrasion with 37% phosphoric acid and fine-grained pumice or GII - microabrasion associated with at-home bleaching (10% carbamide peroxide).
Were
…show more content…
However, two examiners that evaluated the reduction of fluorosis stains were blinded.
Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? Yes the groups were similar at the start of the trail. The participants were 15-39 years old, all in good oral and general health living in an area endemic for fluorosis and have at least 4 maxillary anterior teeth with dental fluorosis ranging from 1 to 7 according to the TF index. Participants that were excluded from the trial included those under orthodontic treatment, previous hypersensitivity or have nonvital incisors or canines, smokers, pregnant or lactating women.
5. Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally? Yes, patients were treated equally. All the patients were evaluated one month after treatment and fluorosis stains was measured by the same two blinded examiners following the same protocol that was used at baseline.
6. Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion? Yes all of the patients who entered the trial were properly accounted for at its conclusion. This is evident in the study which states that all patients attended the 1-month
Thesis Statement: Concerns for water fluoridation stem from the toxicity of fluoride, the dangers fluoride pose to the body, and equal declining tooth decay seen for fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.
My first argument for the fluoridation of water is that everyone in society should have equal opportunities for dental health improvements; water fluoridation achieves this as it promotes equity within society by making increased fluoride accessible to everyone. The principle of equity aims to ensure resources within society are distributed in a way that results in everyone their minimum requirements met (Reid & Robson, 2007). Public water fluoridation therefore creates equity for dental health improvements by making some level of preventative care available to everyone (Awofeso, 2012). This builds on the idea...
The providers actively decide to deceive their patients. They spend the money the government gives them on placeboes. They tell the patients that they are receiving treatment when they are in fact not. This is compounded by the fact that initially, they believe they will get funding for treatment. Miss Evers is told that those in the study will be “first in line” for treatment when an effective treatment becomes available. The first to realize that this is not, in fact, true are the two doctors, Dr. Sam Brodus and Dr. Douglas. Ten years into the study when penicillin is show as an effective cure for syphilis they make the decision not to treat the men. At this point they are no longer doing the study to buy time until they can get treatment for the men, rather they are withholding treatment to watch the men gone through the full range of symptoms that accompany syphilis including death. Still, if the need for dead bodies to autopsy was a requirement of the studies completion and a primary indicator the success of the studies main objective, then the doctors knew from the beginning that they were not buying time until they got treatment for the afflicted men. It is possible they deceived themselves to a certain extent but it is entirely clear that they deceived Miss Evers. She believed that it would only be six months to a year until the men got treatment. Then, after that, she believed for ten years that they men would be first in line once there was a proven treatment. When this became clear it was not the case she questioned the doctors. They convinced her the study had a greater purpose aside from curing the men in it. She wanted to believe it and in many ways, she forced herself to believe it. Still, when viewing the withholding of treatment as unjust she attempted to administer treatment herself. This resulted in a patient committing suicide in a
CF multi-disciplinary team also undertakes clinical research of the condition, where new treatment and therapies are constantly exploring, becoming more effective. In the clinic whilst the patients wait to be seen by medical staff, they were often asked to complete a questionnaire or to participate in the studies. Some patients volunteered to take part in a clinical trial such as a Kalydeco trial.
On his initial examination dated 23/06/13 the patient was seen for a routine full mouth scale and polish with reinforced oral hygiene instruction including flossing technique. He presented with excellent oral hygiene at this appointment which was a reflection of his commitment to good oral hygiene; tooth-brushing twice daily and dental flossing once daily. This was further supported by the patients plaque scores at 5% and bleeding scores at 4% with only minimal supra gingival calculus on lower anterior teeth. There was no erythema or oedema present on the gingival tissues.
Potter, J. E., White, K., Hopkins, K., Amastae, J., & Grossman, D. (2010). Clinic Versus Over-
Krugman and his colleagues had many ethical considerations before beginning the trial. They said that it is well known that infectious hepatitis is much milder in young children. Also that the study group would contain only those who had their parents consent. Thay also said that their was already a serious uncontrollable endemic situation with Hepatitis and suitable studies would’ve lead to its control. They considered this experiment “passive active immunity”. They also felt like the experiment was ok since the plan wa...
Seventy percent of the US population now receives fluoridated drinking water, an industrial grade level chemical most commonly associated with the prevention of tooth decay, and in Virginia especially, 95.7% of all public water is fluoridated (CDC). I present this numbers to your concern because for something that is almost in all public drinking water, it is not informed to the average Virginia citizen, but that is not the primary issue I am addressing you for. My main matter of concern is that more recent studies performed by scientist in the US and abroad are now finally advocating decade old cautions back then just acknowledged as unsubstantial research or even myths on how rather potentially hazardous the fluoridation of water is for
3). By receiving approval, it can be inferred that the study was ethically acceptable and the rights of the participants are protected (Houser, 2015, p. 61). To ensure human subjects are protected during research studies, researchers use three ethical principals: respect for persons, beneficence and justice (Houser, 2015, p. 52). Respect for persons protects the individuals right to make their own decisions, beneficience is do not harm, and justice provides the right for every individual who wants the opportunity to partipate in the study can (Houser, 2015, pp. 52-53). Respect for persons was protected by the researchers because they provided informed consent prior to data collection, data collection would remain confidential, and the participants can withdraw from the study at any time (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p. 3). Beneficence was protected in this study because the researcher wasn’t an employee from the hospital; this allowed new nurses’ to share their perceptions freely, preventing any fear of retribution from being honest (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p. 3). Justice was not clearly stated in this study because the researchers did not clearly state if the study was open to all new nurses on all the wards of the hospital (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p.
15) Yes it was used correctly. They gathered their information from the patients by directly asking them. Although some of the patients responses were incorrect, they method used to obtain the information was still correct.
Turner, B. J., Newschaffer, C. J., Zhang, D., Fanning, T., & Hauck, W. W. (1999). Translating clinical trial results into practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(12), 979-986.
8 draft of the case which showed us where we needed additional data to complete the study. With this
One important fact in this case is medication that the physician administered to the patient is not listed in the case study. All information must be documented, this helps to keep track in the event the patient gets a reaction this is significant information that must be recorded. Although this may be unimportant to the case this should still be listed. As this patient condition worsened he was diagnosed with osteomyelitis. As mentioned above knowing all medications being administered are important, when treatment first began the pharmacist in this case did exceptionally well keeping track of the medications being administered. Another important factor is that the pharmacist kept track of the care being provided to the patient because the pharmacist reviewed patient results he was able to make suggestions to the physician to check the patients creatinine levels. However the pharmacist in the case is the defendant. Although the pharmacist did well in reviewing the patient’s information during most of the treatment, he did fail to do a follow up check. The
...per medical treatment. V.S. Ramachandran states that “randomized, controlled trial research do not make clinical decisions for physicians; rather, they must be applied to individual patients and clinical situations based on value judgments, both by physicians and patients. Clinical decision-making must entail value judgments about the costs and benefits of available treatments” (91). A patient can practice medicine by deciding whether a certain treatment option is right for him or her. For example, an individual might choose to take medication instead of having surgery because of monetary costs, or decide which prescription drug to take based on the potential side effects. Overall, though a physician may advise an individual on a certain treatment to cure him or her of a medical concern, it is ultimately the patients’ decision on whether or not to carry it out.