Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
adjudicated.
Dutch translation:
beoordelen/evalueren
- The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2012-01-06 21:54:09 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
Jan 3, 2012 14:13
12 yrs ago
4 viewers *
English term
adjudicated.
English to Dutch
Medical
Medical (general)
study protocol
Major bleeding events, stroke, TIA and systemic embolism will be adjudicated.
Proposed translations
(Dutch)
4 +2 | beoordelen/evalueren | Katrien De Clercq |
3 +2 | (worden) beoordeeld op geldigheid | Barend van Zadelhoff |
Proposed translations
+2
12 mins
Selected
beoordelen/evalueren
*
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Carolien de Visser
: afhankelijk van de context misschien 'beoordeeld/geëvalueerd en behandeld'
4 mins
|
Dank je!
|
|
agree |
Laura DH
14 mins
|
Dank je!
|
|
neutral |
Barend van Zadelhoff
: er staat 'adjudicated', niet 'evaluated, assessed, judged', je doet geen recht aan de specifieke betekenis van het begrip en de context // + op geldigheid , lijkt me nogal een verschil /'beoordelen' op zich kan van alles betekenen, dekt niet 'adjudicate'
1 hr
|
Je gebruikt ook zelf 'beoordeeld'???
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+2
45 mins
(worden) beoordeeld op geldigheid
zou mijn conclusie zijn
Of: (worden) beoordeeld op frequentie van voorkomen
in de zin van of deze gebeurtenissen voldoen aan de definitie
en of ze meegenomen moeten worden bij de beoordeling van de resultaten van het onderzoek of niet
ze worden wel of niet 'toegewezen' om tot een objectieve beoordeling van de resultaten van het onderzoek te komen
Methods We reviewed the literature concerning central adjudication and documented the experience of adjudication in several clinical trials. Since definitions for nonfatal events are generally heterogeneous and subjective, one reason for a central process of adjudication is to assist in assuring systematic application of the definition used in the trial.
http://ctj.sagepub.com/content/5/1/56.abstract
Clinical events committees (CEC) are used routinely to adjudicate suspected end-points in cardiovascular trials, but little information has been published about the various processes used. We reviewed results of the CEC process used to identify and adjudicate suspected end-point (post-enrolment) myocardial infarction (MI) in the large Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (Eptifibatide) Therapy (PURSUIT) trial.
The PURSUIT trial randomised 10,948 patients with acute coronary syndromes to receive eptifibatide or placebo. A central adjudication process was established prospectively to identify all suspected MIs and adjudicate events based on protocol definitions of MI. Suspected MIs were identified by systematic review of data collection forms, cardiac enzyme results, and electrocardiograms. Two physicians independently reviewed all suspected events. If they disagreed whether a MI had occurred, a committee of cardiologists adjudicated the case.Results
The CEC identified 5005 patients with suspected infarction (46%), of which 1415 (28%) were adjudicated as end-point infarctions. As expected, the process identified more end-point events than did the site investigators. Absolute and relative treatment effects of eptifibatide were smaller when using CEC-determined MI rates rather than site investigator-determined rates. The site-investigator reporting of MI and the CEC assessment of MI disagreed in 20% of the cases reviewed by the CEC.Conclusions
End-point adjudication by a CEC is important, to provide standardised, systematic, independent, and unbiased assessment of end-points, particularly in trials that span geographic regions and clinical practice settings. Understanding the CEC process used is important in the interpretation of trial results and event rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57749/
Of: (worden) beoordeeld op frequentie van voorkomen
in de zin van of deze gebeurtenissen voldoen aan de definitie
en of ze meegenomen moeten worden bij de beoordeling van de resultaten van het onderzoek of niet
ze worden wel of niet 'toegewezen' om tot een objectieve beoordeling van de resultaten van het onderzoek te komen
Methods We reviewed the literature concerning central adjudication and documented the experience of adjudication in several clinical trials. Since definitions for nonfatal events are generally heterogeneous and subjective, one reason for a central process of adjudication is to assist in assuring systematic application of the definition used in the trial.
http://ctj.sagepub.com/content/5/1/56.abstract
Clinical events committees (CEC) are used routinely to adjudicate suspected end-points in cardiovascular trials, but little information has been published about the various processes used. We reviewed results of the CEC process used to identify and adjudicate suspected end-point (post-enrolment) myocardial infarction (MI) in the large Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (Eptifibatide) Therapy (PURSUIT) trial.
The PURSUIT trial randomised 10,948 patients with acute coronary syndromes to receive eptifibatide or placebo. A central adjudication process was established prospectively to identify all suspected MIs and adjudicate events based on protocol definitions of MI. Suspected MIs were identified by systematic review of data collection forms, cardiac enzyme results, and electrocardiograms. Two physicians independently reviewed all suspected events. If they disagreed whether a MI had occurred, a committee of cardiologists adjudicated the case.Results
The CEC identified 5005 patients with suspected infarction (46%), of which 1415 (28%) were adjudicated as end-point infarctions. As expected, the process identified more end-point events than did the site investigators. Absolute and relative treatment effects of eptifibatide were smaller when using CEC-determined MI rates rather than site investigator-determined rates. The site-investigator reporting of MI and the CEC assessment of MI disagreed in 20% of the cases reviewed by the CEC.Conclusions
End-point adjudication by a CEC is important, to provide standardised, systematic, independent, and unbiased assessment of end-points, particularly in trials that span geographic regions and clinical practice settings. Understanding the CEC process used is important in the interpretation of trial results and event rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57749/
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Tina Vonhof (X)
1 hr
|
Dank je wel, Tina.
|
|
agree |
Frederik Hostens
1349 days
|
Dank je. Ja, dit is inderdaad wat Adjudicators en Adjucation Committees/Clinical events committees doen. Maar ja "Selected automatically based on peer agreement." :-)
|
Discussion
Zie wel mijn commentaar bij die vraag.
Je kunt daar simpel 'beoordeeld' gebruiken omdat uit de rest van de alinea volledig duidelijk is waar het om gaat, dat is hier zeker niet zo.
Je kunt hier zonder verdere context niet vertalen met simpel 'beoordeeld' omdat het begrip 'adjudicated' daarmee geen recht wordt gedaan en de lezer niet de boodschap krijgt die hem gegeven zou moeten worden.
Ik dacht bij het geven en motiveren van mijn antwoord uiteraard niet aan die Kudozvraag maar beantwoordde deze vraag geheel onbevangen.