This data is from the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). It contains all decisions from Independent Medical Reviews (IMR) administered by the DMHC since January 1, 2001. An IMR is an independent review of a denied, delayed, or modified health care service that the health plan has determined to be not medically necessary, experimental/investigational or non-emergent/urgent. If the IMR is decided in an enrollees favor, the health plan must authorize the service or treatment requested.

Update — December 7, 2014. – Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not working for many reasons, for example: 1. Incorrect in their foundations (paradox): hierarchical levels of evidence are supported by opinions (i.e., lowest strength of evidence according to EBM) instead of real data collected from different types of study designs (i.e., evidence). http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1122534 2. The effect of criminal practices by pharmaceutical companies is only possible because of the complicity of others: healthcare systems, professional associations, governmental and academic institutions. Pharmaceutical companies also corrupt at the personal level, politicians and political parties are on their payroll, medical professionals seduced by different types of gifts in exchange of prescriptions (i.e., bribery) which very likely results in patients not receiving the proper treatment for their disease, many times there is no such thing: healthy persons not needing pharmacological treatments of any kind are constantly misdiagnosed and treated with unnecessary drugs. Some medical professionals are converted in K.O.L. which is only a puppet appearing on stage to spread lies to their peers, a person supposedly trained to improve the well-being of others, now deceits on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Probably the saddest thing is that many honest doctors are being misled by these lies created by the rules of pharmaceutical marketing instead of scientific, medical, and ethical principles. Interpretation of EBM in this context was not anticipated by their creators. “The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.” ―Peter C. Gøtzsche “doctors and their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” —Peter C Gøtzsche, The BMJ, 2012, Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. Pending (Colombia): Health Promoter Entities (In Spanish: EPS ―Empresas Promotoras de Salud).

1. Misinterpretations New technologies or concepts are difficult to understand in the beginning, it doesn’t matter their simplicity, we need to get used to new tools aimed to improve our professional practice. Probably the best explanation is here in these videos (credits to Antonio Villafaina for sharing these videos with me). English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&w=420&h=315 Spanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApozQBrlhU&w=420&h=315 ----------------------- Hypothesis: hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong Dear Editor, I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter. Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2) Additional explanation to this question: – Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available. References
2. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1135873
3. The EBM Challenge Day 1: No Answers. Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014.http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725. _ Fileset contents Raw data: Excel archive: Raw data, interactive figures, and PubMed search terms. Google Spreadsheet is also available (URL below the article description). Figure 1. Unadjusted (Fig 1A) and adjusted (Fig 1B) PubMed publication trends (01/01/1992 to 30/06/2014). Figure 2. Adjusted PubMed publication trends (07/01/2008 to 29/06/2014) Figure 3. Google search trends: Jan 2004 to Jun 2014 / 1-week periods. Figure 4. PubMed publication trends (1962-2013) systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials, and observational studies.
   Figure 5. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Infographics: Unpublished US phase 3 clinical trials (2002-2014) completed before Jan 2011 = 50.8%. figshare.http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1121675 Raw data: "13377 studies found for: Completed | Interventional Studies | Phase 3 | received from 01/01/2002 to 01/01/2014 | Worldwide". This database complies with the terms and conditions of ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/terms-conditions Supplementary Figures (S1-S6). PubMed publication delay in the indexation processes does not explain the descending trends in the scientific output of evidence-based medicine. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following persons for providing valuable concepts in data visualization and infographics:
4. Maria Fernanda Ramírez. Professor of graphic design. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia.
5. Lorena Franco. Graphic design student. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia. Related articles by this author (Jorge H. Ramírez)
6. Ramirez JH. Lack of transparency in clinical trials: a call for action. Colomb Med (Cali) 2013;44(4):243-6. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892242
7. Ramirez JH. Re: Evidence based medicine is broken (17 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759181
8. Ramirez JH. Re: Global rules for global health: why we need an independent, impartial WHO (19 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759151
9. Ramirez JH. PubMed publication trends (1992 to 2014): evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines (04 July 2014). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 Recommended articles
10. Greenhalgh Trisha, Howick Jeremy,Maskrey Neal. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014;348:g3725
11. Spence Des. Evidence based medicine is broken BMJ 2014; 348:g22
12. Schünemann Holger J, Oxman Andrew D,Brozek Jan, Glasziou Paul, JaeschkeRoman, Vist Gunn E et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008; 336:1106
13. Lau Joseph, Ioannidis John P A, TerrinNorma, Schmid Christopher H, OlkinIngram. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597
14. Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM (2014) Using Evidence to Combat Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Evaluating Treatments, Tests, and Disease Definitions in the Time of Too Much. PLoS Med 11(7): e1001655. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001655
15. Katz D. A-holistic view of evidence based medicinehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/05/02/a-holistic-view-of-evidence-based-medicine/ ---

This dataset tracks the updates made on the dataset "Independent Medical Review (IMR) Determinations, Trend" as a repository for previous versions of the data and metadata.

In this study, we compared the reliability and potential sources of bias associated with application rating with those of application ranking in 3,156 applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We cannot publish the data related to this manuscript but we are sharing 3 SAS programs to show how we calculated some of a) the reviewer level variables b) the icc score c) the multivariate analysis. The programs were not written to be used with datasets other than the ones provided by CIHR.

IntroductionThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients have sought medical advice on online medical platforms. Review data have become an essential reference point for supporting users in selecting doctors. As the research object, this study considered Haodf.com, a well-known e-consultation website in China.MethodsThis study examines the topics and sentimental change rules of user review texts from a temporal perspective. We also compared the topics and sentimental change characteristics of user review texts before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. First, 323,519 review data points about 2,122 doctors on Haodf.com were crawled using Python from 2017 to 2022. Subsequently, we employed the latent Dirichlet allocation method to cluster topics and the ROST content mining software to analyze user sentiments. Second, according to the results of the perplexity calculation, we divided text data into five topics: diagnosis and treatment attitude, medical skills and ethics, treatment effect, treatment scheme, and treatment process. Finally, we identified the most important topics and their trends over time.ResultsUsers primarily focused on diagnosis and treatment attitude, with medical skills and ethics being the second-most important topic among users. As time progressed, the attention paid by users to diagnosis and treatment attitude increased—especially during the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, when attention to diagnosis and treatment attitude increased significantly. User attention to the topic of medical skills and ethics began to decline during the COVID-19 outbreak, while attention to treatment effect and scheme generally showed a downward trend from 2017 to 2022. User attention to the treatment process exhibited a declining tendency before the COVID-19 outbreak, but increased after. Regarding sentiment analysis, most users exhibited a high degree of satisfaction for online medical services. However, positive user sentiments showed a downward trend over time, especially after the COVID-19 outbreak.DiscussionThis study has reference value for assisting user choice regarding medical treatment, decision-making by doctors, and online medical platform design.

Background:
The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) is a large-scale, multi-purpose longitudinal dataset providing information about babies born at the beginning of the 21st century, their progress through life, and the families who are bringing them up, for the four countries of the United Kingdom. The original objectives of the first MCS survey, as laid down in the proposal to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in March 2000, were:

• to chart the initial conditions of social, economic and health advantages and disadvantages facing children born at the start of the 21st century, capturing information that the research community of the future will require
• to provide a basis for comparing patterns of development with the preceding cohorts (the National Child Development Study, held at the UK Data Archive under GN 33004, and the 1970 Birth Cohort Study, held under GN 33229)
• to collect information on previously neglected topics, such as fathers' involvement in children's care and development
• to focus on parents as the most immediate elements of the children's 'background', charting their experience as mothers and fathers of newborn babies in the year 2000, recording how they (and any other children in the family) adapted to the newcomer, and what their aspirations for her/his future may be
• to emphasise intergenerational links including those back to the parents' own childhood
• to investigate the wider social ecology of the family, including social networks, civic engagement and community facilities and services, splicing in geo-coded data when available

Additional objectives subsequently included for MCS were:

• to provide control cases for the national evaluation of Sure Start (a government programme intended to alleviate child poverty and social exclusion)
• to provide samples of adequate size to analyse and compare the smaller countries of the United Kingdom, and include disadvantaged areas of England

Further information about the MCS can be found on the Centre for Longitudinal Studies web pages.

The content of MCS studies, including questions, topics and variables can be explored via the CLOSER Discovery website.

The first sweep (MCS1) interviewed both mothers and (where resident) fathers (or father-figures) of infants included in the sample when the babies were nine months old, and the second sweep (MCS2) was carried out with the same respondents when the children were three years of age. The third sweep (MCS3) was conducted in 2006, when the children were aged five years old, the fourth sweep (MCS4) in 2008, when they were seven years old, the fifth sweep (MCS5) in 2012-2013, when they were eleven years old, the sixth sweep (MCS6) in 2015, when they were fourteen years old, and the seventh sweep (MCS7) in 2018, when they were seventeen years old. End User Licence versions of MCS studies:
The End User Licence (EUL) versions of MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5, MCS6 and MCS7 are held under UK Data Archive SNs 4683, 5350, 5795, 6411, 7464, 8156 and 8682 respectively. The longitudinal family file is held under SN 8172.

Sub-sample studies:
Some studies based on sub-samples of MCS have also been conducted, including a study of MCS respondent mothers who had received assisted fertility treatment, conducted in 2003 (see EUL SN 5559). Also, birth registration and maternity hospital episodes for the MCS respondents are held as a separate dataset (see EUL SN 5614).


How to access genetic and/or bio-medical sample data from a range of longitudinal surveys:
For information on how to access biomedical data from MCS that are not held at the UKDS, see the CLS Genetic data and biological samples webpage.

Secure Access datasets:
Secure Access versions of the MCS have more restrictive access conditions than versions available under the standard End User Licence or Special Licence (see 'Access data' tab above).

Secure Access versions of the MCS include:

• detailed sensitive variables not available under EUL. These have been grouped thematically and are held under SN 8753 (socio-economic, accommodation and occupational data), SN 8754 (self-reported health, behaviour and fertility), SN 8755 (demographics, language and religion) and SN 8756 (exact participation dates). These files replace previously available studies held under SNs 8456 and 8622-8627
  
• detailed geographical identifier files which are grouped by sweep held under SN 7758 (MCS1), SN 7759 (MCS2), SN 7760 (MCS3), SN 7761 (MCS4), SN 7762 (MCS5 2001 Census Boundaries), SN 7763 (MCS5 2011 Census Boundaries), SN 8231 (MCS6 2001 Census Boundaries), SN 8232 (MCS6 2011 Census Boundaries), SN 8757 (MCS7), SN 8758 (MCS7 2001 Census Boundaries) and SN 8759 (MCS7 2011 Census Boundaries). These files replace previously available files grouped by geography SN 7049 (Ward level), SN 7050 (Lower Super Output Area level), and SN 7051 (Output Area level)
• linked education administrative datasets for Key Stages 1, 2, 4 and 5 held under SN 8481 (England). This replaces previously available datasets for Key Stage 1 (SN 6862) and Key Stage 2 (SN 7712)
  
• linked education administrative datasets for Key Stage 1 held under SN 7414 (Scotland)
• linked education administrative dataset for Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 under SN 9085 (Wales)
  
• linked NHS Patient Episode Database for Wales (PEDW) for MCS1 – MCS5 held under SN 8302
• linked Scottish Medical Records data held under SNs 8709, 8710, 8711, 8712, 8713 and 8714;
• Banded Distances to English Grammar Schools for MCS5 held under SN 8394
• linked Health Administrative Datasets (Hospital Episode Statistics) for England for years 2000-2019 held under SN 9030
• linked Health Administrative Datasets (SAIL) for Wales held under SN 9310
  
• linked Hospital of Birth data held under SN 5724.

The linked education administrative datasets held under SNs 8481,7414 and 9085 may be ordered alongside the MCS detailed geographical identifier files only if sufficient justification is provided in the application.

Researchers applying for access to the Secure Access MCS datasets should indicate on their ESRC Accredited Researcher application form the EUL dataset(s) that they also wish to access (selected from the MCS Series Access web page).

The Millennium Cohort Study: Linked Health Administrative Data (Scottish Medical Records), Child Health Reviews, 2000-2015: Secure Access includes data files from the NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics database for those cohort members who provided consent to health data linkage in the Age 50 sweep, and had ever lived in Scotland. The Scottish Medical Records database contains information about all hospital admissions in Scotland. This study concerns the Child Health Reviews (CHR) from first visit to school reviews.

Other datasets are available from the Scottish Medical Records database, these include:

• Prescribing Information System (PIS) held under SN 8710
• Scottish Immunisation and Recall System (SIRS) held under SN 8711
• Scottish Birth Records (SMR11) held under SN 8712
• Inpatient and Day Care Attendance (SMR01) held under SN 8713
• Outpatient Attendance (SMR00) held under SN 8714

Users

This statistic displays the total number of appliance use reviews in England from 2010/11 to 2023/24. The number of medical appliance use reviews taking place in pharmacies has increased substantially, from around 15 thousand in 2010/11 to over 100 thousand in 2023/24.

This is data on the 15 feasibility trials found in a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing routinely collected health data (RCHD) in the UK. The systematic review, published in 20201, considered successful applications for RCHD (such as NHS Digital) detailed in publicly accessible release registers. The release registers were searched in January to May 2019 and data was extracted on every RCT receiving data between 2013 and 2018. This dataset comprises information on the 15 feasibility trials who received routine data during this period.

A paper detailing the methodology and findings has been published: Mirza A, Yorke-Edwards V, Lensen S et al. Why are feasibility studies accessing routinely collected health data? A systematic review. F1000Research 2021, 10:815

The dataset is provided as a .txt file, with columns separated by | [pipe/ vertical bar]. The PRISMA 2020 checklist2 for the submitted paper is provided as a .pdf file

1. Lensen S, Macnair A, Love SB, et al. Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries. Trials 2020; 21. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04329-8 2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71In Version 2 the PRISMA checklist was added: the dataset remains unchanged. In Version 3 the description and references were updated to include the publication associated with this dataset.

BackgroundAlthough a substantial number of studies focus on the teaching and application of medical statistics in China, few studies comprehensively evaluate the recognition of and demand for medical statistics. In addition, the results of these various studies differ and are insufficiently comprehensive and systematic.ObjectivesThis investigation aimed to evaluate the general cognition of and demand for medical statistics by undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff in China.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive database search related to the cognition of and demand for medical statistics from January 2007 to July 2014 and conducted a meta-analysis of non-controlled studies with sub-group analysis for undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff.ResultsThere are substantial differences with respect to the cognition of theory in medical statistics among undergraduates (73.5%), graduates (60.7%), and medical staff (39.6%). The demand for theory in medical statistics is high among graduates (94.6%), undergraduates (86.1%), and medical staff (88.3%). Regarding specific statistical methods, the cognition of basic statistical methods is higher than of advanced statistical methods. The demand for certain advanced statistical methods, including (but not limited to) multiple analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple linear regression, and logistic regression, is higher than that for basic statistical methods. The use rates of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and statistical analysis software (SAS) are only 55% and 15%, respectively.ConclusionThe overall statistical competence of undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff is insufficient, and their ability to practically apply their statistical knowledge is limited, which constitutes an unsatisfactory state of affairs for medical statistics education. Because the demand for skills in this area is increasing, the need to reform medical statistics education in China has become urgent.

Inquiry on medical practice information managed by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (medical practice statistics by age group, inpatient outpatient clinic, type of medical institution, and location of medical institution)

The Foundation Health Measures component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review includes data on 14 global summary measures used to monitor improvement in population health. See Technical Notes of the Foundation Health Measures in the HP2020 Final Review for additional information on the definition and construction of these measures included.

Unlocking Data to Inform Public Health Policy and Practice: WP1 Mapping Review Supplementary Excel S1
The data extracted into Excel Tab "S1 Case studies (extracted)" represents information from 31 case studies as part of the "Unlocking Data to Inform Public Health Policy and Practice" project, Workpackage (WP) 1 Mapping Review. Details about the WP1 mapping review can be found in the "Unlocking Data to Inform Public Health Policy and Practice" project report, which can be found via this DOI link: https://doi.org/10.15131/shef.data.21221606

This repository contains the data extracted for the scoping review "EEG datasets for healthcare: a scoping review" and the code used in the analysis.

A dataset that explores Green Card sponsorship trends, salary data, and employer insights for epidemiology medical statistics in the U.S.

A service that allows you to search disease information managed by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service by 3rd and 4th disease code and year of treatment, by gender/age group, by inpatient outpatient, by type of medical institution, and by the location of the medical institution

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Medical Review Officer Certification Council

This data is from the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). It contains all information on health plan proposed premium rates filed with the DMHC since January 1, 2011. The DMHC is committed to providing the public with information in order to expand consumer understanding about premium rate increases. The DMHC does not have the authority to approve or deny rate increases; however, the DMHC's review of proposed premium rates improves accountability in health plan rate setting and often results in a reduction in the proposed rate.