Browsing by Author "Poddalgoda, I."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Development and validation of a tool to assess neuro-developmental outcome of 5-9 year old children in Sri Lanka
(2009) Abeysuriya, V.; Wickremasinghe, A.R.; Perera, K.P.J.; Kasturiratne, A.; Poddalgoda, I.
Objective: To determine the validity and reliability of a tool which has been developed based on Griffiths Mental Development scale (GMDS) to assess the neuro-developmental outcome of 5-9 year old children in Sri Lanka. Design: Descriptive cross sectional study Setting: Randomly selected five primary schools of the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) area in Ragama, Pediatrics Out patient clinic at Colombo North Teaching Hospital in Ragama and the Department of Pediatrics at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya. Method: The study population consisted of two groups. Group A had 60 children. This sample consisted of 20 children who have been clinically diagnosed as having poor neuro-development and 40 children with normal neuro development. They were assessed using the developed neurodevelopment assessment tool at Colombo North Teaching Hospital, Ragama to determine the cutoff value for poor and normal neuro- developmental outcome. The ROC curve analysis was used to determine the statistical significant of the cutoff GQ value which identify the poor and normal neuro developmental outcome of children by the tool. Group B had 100 primary school children (n=100) who were selected from Ragama MOH area. It consisted of 50 children with the high educational performance and 50 with the poor performance based on teacher’s assessment based on student performance reports. The group B has been used to re-asses the validity of the developed tool with the identified cut off GQ value. History of birth and development, family history, teachers’ records, school performance, clinical examination and aptitude test were used to determine neuro-developmental outcome of children by the pediatrician. Result: A cut-off value of GQ 100 (P<0.05) was identified to differentiate children with poor and normal neuro-developmental outcome (sensitivity 100% and specificity 100%). Reliability of identified cutoff value was tested by administrating the tool to the selected primary school children. Out of 50 poor educational performance children who were identified by the teachers’ only 36 were below GQ 100. There were 31 children who were clinically diagnosed as having poor neruo-development by the pediatrician and all of them had GQ of below 100 (Sensitivity 100%). Conclusion: The developed neuro-developmental outcome assessment tool is a valid and reliable instrument to screen neuro developmental outcome of Sri Lankan children aged between 5-9 years.
Quality of reporting clinical trials published in five leading Sri Lankan medical journals
(Wiley-Blackwell, 2013) Abeysena, C.; Poddalgoda, I.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in five leading Sri Lankan medical journals. METHODS: Six medical journals were hand searched for clinical trials published from 1982 to 2011. Eligible criteria were all randomized and non-randomized clinical trials conducted in humans. A checklist was developed based on CONSORT and TREND recommendations. Each study was independently evaluated by two reviewers. Outcome measures were presence of checklist items in published reports. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized and 24 non-randomized parallel group trials from 724 studies in five journals met the inclusion criteria. Out of 39 trials, 39 (97%) clearly described the objectives, 16 (41%) defined the periods of recruitment, 7 (18%) reported how sample size was determined, 10 (25.6%) reported the methods to enhance the quality of measurements, 20 (51%) reported baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of each group, 4 (10%) showed flow diagrams, 23 (69%) reported statistical methods used to compare groups for primary outcomes, 21 (54%) reported effect size, 4 (10%) reported its precision, and 20 (51%) interpreted the results in the context of current evidence, and 5 (13%) described the generalizability of the findings. Of the 15 randomized trials, only one (7%) reported sequence generation, 5 (33%) allocation concealment, 9 (60%) reported blinding status of participants or investigators, and 2 (13%) reported intention to treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of several essential recommendations remained suboptimal. Education and training of trial methods and awareness of the CONSORT and TREND statements and more attention to the quality of reporting may improve matters.
The quality of reporting of case control studies published in selected Sri Lankan medical journals
(College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka, 2009) Abeysena, C.; Poddalgoda, I.
BACKGROUND: Incomplete and inadequate reporting of research hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the studies published in the medical literature. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of case control studies published in selected Sri Lankan medical journals METHODS: Nine medical journals were hand searched for case control studies published since 1980 and all (18) which appeared in the 287 journal issues were included for assessment. A checklist was developed based on STROBE guidelines. Each study was assessed by two independent observers for presence of criteria in the checklist developed. RESULTS: Of the 18 articles, 10 (65.5%) clearly and correctly stated the study design, 16 (89%) the objectives, 11 (61%) described the periods of recruitment, 14 (77.7%) reported comparability of diagnosis of cases and controls clearly, 15 (83.3%) defined exposure and confounding variables clearly, 11 (61%) described comparability of assessment of exposure variables among cases and controls, 11 (61%) data collection methods and 12 (66.6%) sources of data. With regard to statistical issues, 3 (16.6%) included method of sample size determination, 15 (83.3%) presented unadjusted estimates of effects and 6 (33.3%) adjusted estimates and 10 (55.5%) the precision of the estimates. Of the 7 (39%) matched case control studies and only one applied matched analysis. Five (27.7%) studies have attempted to address potential sources of bias but none described the generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSION: None of the studies had fulfilled all criteria recommended by STROBE guidelines. Awareness on the STROBE statement and more attention to details may improve the quality of reporting.