Assessment of treatment

SARA requires that remedial actions meet all applicable or relevant federal standards or any more stringent state standards. Nine criteria that need to be met are set by CERCLA as amended by SARA for a complete assessment of treatment alternatives applicable for a site remedial action12 ... 

Aman, M.G., Singh, N.N., Stewart, A.W., and Field, C.J. (1985) The Aberrant Behavior Checklist a behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. Am Ment Defic 89 485 91. 

Response No MDD or a significant reduction in MDD symptoms for at least 2 weeks (see Assessment of Treatment Response)... 

Bennett JM, Kaminski MS, Leonard JP, Vase JM, et al. 2005. Assessment of treatment-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with tositumomab and Iodine I 131 tositumomab. Blood. 1052 4576-4582. 

Ekman P. A risk-benefit assessment of treatment with finasteride in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Drug Saf 1998 18 161-70. 

As with film, two basic approaches are available for the assessment of treatment of mouldings—tests for adhesion, and for wettability. 

Massie BM, Armstrong PW, Qeland JG, Horowitz JD, Packer M, Poole-Wilson PA, Ryden L. Toleration of high doses of angiotensin-converting enzj me inhibitors in patients with chronic heart faUnre resnlts from the ATLAS trial. The Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival Arch Intern Med 2001 161(2) 165-71. 

The goal of randomization is to eliminate bias or, in practical terms, to reduce bias to the greatest extent possible. Bias is the difference between the true value of a particular quantity and an estimate of the quantity obtained from scientific investigation. Various influences can introduce error into our assessment of treatment effects, and these are discussed at various points in the following chapters. At this point we discuss an example of systematic error, or bias. 

Messmore H, Jeske W, Wehrmacher W, Walenga J. Benefit-risk assessment of treatments for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Drag Saf 2003 26 625-641. 

Treatment algorithms for early and advanced IPD are shown in Figs. 57 and 57-5. More detailed treatment information has been published, as have evidence-based assessments of treatment interventions. The only established pharmacologic therapy for IPD is medication that can transiently reverse signs and symptoms. 

As patients live longer, as is the case with SLE, ontcome mea-smes other than mortahty will be needed to assess the effect of treatment. Clinicians and researchers working with Inpns patients have developed and continne to refine some of these alternative ontcome measures. Three important domains for assessing lupus patients include disease activity, accmnulated damage, and quahty of fife. Several instruments useful for assessing patients with SLE are fisted in Table 85-7. Increased use of these and similar instruments for assessment of treatment outcomes in patients with SLE can be expected. 

Olsson LG, Swedberg K, Clark AL, Witte KK, Cleland JGF. Six minute corridor walk test as an outcome measure for the assessment of treatment in randomized, blinded intervention trials of chronic heart failure a systematic review. Eur Heart J 2005 26 778-93. 

The discussion in this chapter is based on information the committee was able to gather on available test results or operational plans for use of the tools as presented by the Army. However, equipment does not always function as designed, and unexpected events—even catastrophic failures—may occur. The Army has conducted preliminary accident risk assessments of treatment systems (see, for example, U.S. Army, 2001a, Appendix D, Summary of Accident Risk Assessment ) but does not appear to have conducted an integrated site-specific risk assessment of its systems, including the risks of catastrophic failures. 

Syndulko, K., Ke, D., Ellison, G.W. et al. 1994a. Neuroperformance assessment of treatment efficacy and MS disease progression in the Cyclosporine Multi center Clinical Trial. Brain (submitted). 

Furthermore, analyzing tumor markers (depending on the tumor type treated - AFP, CEA, CA 19-9 and other relevant markers) for assessment of treatment response during follow-up is recommended. 

Dunn BJ, MacKinnon MA, Knowlden NF, et al. (1992) Hydrofluoric acid dermal burns. An assessment of treatment efficacy using an experimental pig model. J Occup Environ Med 34 902-909... 

The evaluation methods we will discuss in this chapter are instrumental methods that provide objective and quantifiable assessments of treatment effects. Such methods are critically important for claim substantiations and are eurrently or will in the future be required by governmental agencies in this country and abroad. We decided to leave out the subjective methodology used in panel evaluations and eonsumer testing, since all companies in the cosmetic field have their own in-house evaluation procedures, which unfortunately are not yet standardized throughout the industry. For the same reason, we have not included comparisons between objective instrumental methods and subjective evaluation procedures. 

---