scispace - formally typeset
D

Deborah J. Cook

Researcher at McMaster University

Publications -  942
Citations -  165225

Deborah J. Cook is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 173, co-authored 907 publications receiving 148928 citations. Previous affiliations of Deborah J. Cook include McMaster University Medical Centre & Queen's University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Nonbeneficial treatment Canada: definitions, causes, and potential solutions from the perspective of healthcare practitioners*.

TL;DR: The perceptions of acute care practitioners in Canada were explored to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of non Beneficial treatment, and to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonBeneficial treatment.
Journal ArticleDOI

Outcome assessment for clinical trials: How many adjudicators do we need?

TL;DR: It is suggested that when high observer agreement is demonstrated or anticipated, adjudication committees should consist of no more than three members, and a large randomized trial of two diagnostic approaches to potentially operable lung cancer is a case study.
Journal ArticleDOI

Quality of professional society guidelines and consensus conference statements in critical care.

TL;DR: The overall quality of critical care professional society guidelines and consensus statements, as assessed by three published quality instruments, is low and there is room for improvement, which could help facilitate knowledge translation and improve patient care in the intensive care unit.
Journal ArticleDOI

Screening and prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: a decision analysis and economic evaluation.

TL;DR: appropriate prophylaxis provides better value in terms of costs and health gains than routine screening for DVT and programs achieving increased adherence to best-practice venous thromboembolism prevention were cost-effective over a wide range of program costs and were robust in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.