Selection of the Chair is based on expertise and knowledge in the field of immunization

practices, public health, and use of vaccines and prophylaxis agents for the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. A Vice-Chair selected from existing membership is also appointed for a four-year term. The Vice-Chair becomes the NACI Chair when the Chair’s term is complete. The Director of the Immunization and Respiratory Infectious Disease Division designates an Executive Secretary who provides leadership and strategic advice for the Committee and works TGF-beta inhibitor closely with the Chair and the NACI Secretariat (currently comprised of two project managers/assistants and one nurse epidemiologist). Secretariat functions to NACI are provided for or funded by the federal public health agency. Liaison members of NACI are representatives from groups identified by the Chief Public Health Officer to provide expertise on vaccine safety and effectiveness, and/or provide input to ensure appropriate interpretation of NACI’s advice, and/or have access to relevant research on specific issues. Liaison members are selected by their organizations, and are expected to bring knowledge and input into the NACI discussions, express the

views of the organization, and communicate NACI’s advice to the organization as permitted. Ex officio representatives selleck chemical on NACI are assigned by the Director General of the Centre for Immunization & Respiratory Infectious Diseases of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The role of the ex officio members is to support the work of NACI and the agency by providing additional knowledge and expertise, communicating the views of the Department/Agency/Division they represent (e.g. First Nations and Inuit Health Branch), and communicating NACI’s advice as permitted by the PHAC. Vaccine industry representatives cannot be members of NACI, and do not participate in group discussions. Industry experts do provide information about vaccines to the Committee, and may be invited to make presentations to the full committee

or its working groups. NACI is not funded in any way by the vaccine industry. NACI Working Groups are established to address specific vaccine and immunization issues. These groups review evidence and draft until Advisory Committee Statements on specific vaccines, including options for vaccine recommendations for the full committee to consider. Working groups may prepare guidance in response to specific inquiries or other issues as they arise, and are also asked to contribute to and revise relevant chapters of the Canadian Immunization Guide. Working Groups are comprised of voting and liaison members, PHAC staff and external experts as necessary. Working group chairs are members of NACI or others who are appointed as deemed appropriate by the Committee Chair.

Participants described the characteristics (type, onset, duration, severity) of each adverse event on a questionnaire administered at the second through fourth treatments and at follow-up. The difference in prevalence of ‘improvement’ (Global Rating of Change ≥ +4) and ‘worsening’ (Global Rating of Change ≤–2) between the experimental and control groups were the primary analyses for the benefits and harms of the intervention.

‘Worst case’ intention-to-treat and ‘complete case’ analyses were performed (Moher et al 2010, Sterne et al 2009). In the ‘worst case’ analysis for benefit, participants who did not return for follow-up were classified as ‘not improved’ if assigned to the experimental group and ‘improved’ if assigned

to control. For harm, 17-AAG ic50 participants who did not return for follow-up were classified as ‘worse’ if assigned to the experimental group and ‘not worse’ if assigned to control. ‘Complete case’ analyses included only participants who completed follow-up. The risk difference (RD) and 95% CI quantified the size of any difference in prevalence of improvement or worsening between the groups. When the 95% CI for a RD did not contain zero, the point estimate for the beneficial or harmful Protein Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor effect was reported as a number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) with a 95% CI. Differences between groups in follow-up scores for neck pain, arm pain, Neck Disability Index, and Patient-Specific Functional Scale were the secondary analyses for the benefits of neural tissue management. Neck pain, arm pain, and Neck Disability Index were analysed with separate

analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). Follow-up scores in each ANCOVA were adjusted by using the baseline score as the covariate (Vickers and Altman 2001). Because Patient-Specific Functional Scale activities were different for each participant, these change scores were analysed with an unpaired t-test. The size of any treatment effect was reported as the difference between group means and a standardised mean difference, each with a 95% CI. The latter allowed a comparison to previously reported treatment effects of neural tissue management (Gross et al 2004). To further aid the interpretation of any treatment effects related to these secondary outcomes Resminostat (Dworkin et al 2009), NNTs with 95% CIs were calculated for the number of participants who achieved clinically important change scores for neck and arm pain (≥2.2 points) (Young et al 2010), Neck Disability Index (≥ 7 points, 0 to 50 scale) (MacDermid et al 2009), and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (≥ 2.2 points) (Cleland et al 2006, Young et al 2010). The characteristics of adverse events related to neural tissue management were reported with descriptive statistics. A risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI was calculated to determine whether experiencing an adverse event reduced a participant’s chance for being improved at follow-up.