Dataset Information

Overview of the Rapid Response data.

ABSTRACT: The Type I Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC) Rapid Response Workshop was established to evaluate published candidate gene associations in a large collection of affected sib-pair (ASP) families. We report on our quality control (QC) and preliminary family-based association analyses. A random sample of blind duplicates was analyzed for QC. Quality checks, including examination of plate-panel yield, marker yield, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, mismatch error rate, Mendelian error rate, and allele distribution across plates, were performed. Genotypes from 2324 families within nine cohorts were obtained from a panel of 21 candidate genes, including 384 single-nucleotide polymorphisms on two genotyping platforms performed at the Broad Institute Center for Genotyping and Analysis (Cambridge, MA, USA). The T1DGC Rapid Response project, following rigorous QC procedures, resulted in a 2297 family, 9688 genotyped individual database on a single-candidate gene panel. The available data include 9005 individuals with genotype data from both platforms and 683 individuals genotyped (276 in Illumina; 407 in Sequenom) on only one platform.

SUBMITTER: Brown WM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2826989 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Overview of the Rapid Response data.

Brown W M WM Pierce J J JJ Hilner J E JE Perdue L H LH Lohman K K Lu L L de Bakker P I W PI Irenze K K Ziaugra L L Mirel D B DB

Genes and immunity 20091201

The Type I Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC) Rapid Response Workshop was established to evaluate published candidate gene associations in a large collection of affected sib-pair (ASP) families. We report on our quality control (QC) and preliminary family-based association analyses. A random sample of blind duplicates was analyzed for QC. Quality checks, including examination of plate-panel yield, marker yield, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, mismatch error rate, Mendelian error rate, and allele d ...[more]

PMID: 19956101

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy.MethodsWe searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations, and contexts-where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy-were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence, and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively in the tables and figures.ResultsFifty-three systematic reviews were included, of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions, and 13 on neurorehabilitation. The other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results.ConclusionsDespite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable with in-person rehabilitation or better than no rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low-back pain, hip and knee replacement, and multiple sclerosis and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews.ImpactProviding the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore yield better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.

Project description:BackgroundBillions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design - the meaningful involvement of end-users in research - may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised.MethodsReviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised.ResultsA total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of 'research co-design' and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design.ConclusionsResearch co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

Dataset Information

Overview of the Rapid Response data.

Publications

Overview of the Rapid Response data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets