Personal Data Form Pediatric: Fill & Download for Free

I get lot of queries and questions on being a CLINICAL data analyst, hence today I will explain my job profile in detail. This will be a long answer as I will try to cover various aspects of the work I do.Data analyst is of various kinds-Business Data Analyst, Clinical Data Analyst, Market Analyst, etc. Depending on the field of data, the name differs. Also, the methods, tools, software used vary so it is a vast field.I am an experienced Clinical data analyst. I have 5 years plus experience in Clinical Data Management. I have switched two companies till date. My employers, feature in the world top 10 best companies. I also have 3 Barnett certifications.I had joined my previous company as a fresher and was trained for 2 months by the client, post that I had On Job Training and that is how I became a CDA. I did not study Clinical Research, I was trained by the company.Clinical Research is a vast domain where research for new drugs is carried out by the big pharma companies. It is outsourced to Clinical Research Organizations mostly. So, our clients or sponsors would be any company whose medicines are sold in the chemist shop.I have worked for several clients, been a part of successful drugs that have released in the market. So, yes we help bring out cure to diseases and that is based on the quality we deliver. We handle patient data, we are into human data science.There are many departments in Clinical Research- Medical writing, Pharmacovigilance, Data Management, Regulatory affairs, SAS programmers, Data base programmers, Data scientists, etc. I will only focus on Data Management as it is very vast.Data analysis involves the following:1. Data collection2. Data cleaning3. Data representation4. Data analysisSo, we get projects from sponsor for a particular therapeutic area- Cardiovascular, pediatrics, oncology, auto immune etc.Based on the protocol, the data base is designed by data base programmers. We have SAS programmers to help us catch discrepancies in data based on Data Management Plan which has all details of data restrictions to be applied. Data after cleaning is represented as required by the Biostasticians, mainly as TFLs (Tables, Flow chart, Listing) and is submitted to FDA for analysis. Finally, the drug gets rejected or is approved.Data collection is carried out by medical centers worldwide. Data cleaning is done by us, Data Analysts, represented by the Bios team and analysed finally by Scientists ,etc for quality and reliability.There are many other teams working closely in this big process.As a data analyst, one should be through with the ICH guidelines, GCP and SOPs. Data is collected via EDC (Electronic Data Capture) so we need to be familiar with databases. There are many- Oracle Clinical, Inform , Rave, in-house data base etc which one must be through with.Firstly, during the set up the database, testing and QC is performed by the CDA, it is the setup phase. Below will be performed by the CDA:1. Test case writing2. TestingOnce, set up phase is over, the trial starts and data is collected which requires daily and monthly cleaning via various activities, namely:1. Query management(system and manual checks firing in data base)2. Vendor data Reconciliation3. SAE Reconciliation4. SAS Listing Output5. PD Reconciliation6. Trend analysis, if any7. Data Set review, etcEach activity is different and cleans data from various aspects.Lastly, when a projects ends, a CDA is suppose to perform data base lock activities (review activities). Finally, data base is manually locked each form wise by CDA or script run locked by database programmers.A CDA is expected to be highly skilled in Excel as data analysis can be faster. Understanding of protocol, its deviations and study design, understanding the restriction criteria is also very important. Softwares are used, for certain output. Applications are used for report pulling etc.Also, a CDA should know metrics and reporting for knowing the status of the study. Interim analysis, futility analysis, data base lock are milestones which demands clean data so quality should be always maintained.Quality cannot be compromised as its live data so expectations are quite high. With proper training and mentoring one can be a good data analyst. As time passes, speed of analysing data also increases so it gets better with time.It’s a very comfortable job, can be done from home too so may become home-based later and shift to any desired place where net connectivity is good.P.S-I hope the information is helpful. Please do not ask me about Market and Business Data Analysis. I also cannot suggest you any institutions for Clinical Research, as my Master is on Microbiology.

I have done my MS general surgery from AIIMS, New Delhi and my MBBS from AIIMS, New Delhi so instead of speculations by others I can tell you this.It taught me everything. Medicine/ Surgery is so vast that no one can ever teach you everything and even then what is new becomes obsolete after 10 years. So, the training is not spoon feeding but helps to get the knowledge how to learn new things and improve your shortcomings. It will lay the foundation so that we can build a building.I was taught how to manage a patient apart from surgery. We had many SR from out of institutes and although they knew how to do surgery but stumbled on management of complications. We had so many referrals for complications from all over the country and we were explained what would go wrong.Consultants always took rounds of all patients twice a day. I know many of my colleagues from MS out of AIIMS who tell some consultants did not bother even coming once a day. By daily interaction, we could pick their brain, they will tell their experience and have at length discussions. If we came across a complicated case we would have discussions before taking him for surgery. This gave us time to read and prepare before the surgery.We also have rotation in other departments of Neuro Surgery, Cardio surgery, Trauma , Pediatric surgery and Urology. This brodened my perspective and I was able to gain knowledge by working with pioneers in the field and getting the first hand experience.Research was given due importance. My consultant ( Dr Sandeep Agarwal and Dr Sunil Chumber) have impeccable standards and ethics. I did research under them and was taught how do a research properly and never never never to fake data. I was able to publish my research in international journal and preset at international meetings. There I realised how backward Indian standard actually is, because all over India most MS students do not know how to conduct research and can't present on podium at meetings. Most international faculty could make out who did the research and who is lying. This is the reason for limited publications by Indian authors.We had weekly journal clubs where we were taught how to chose important articles and their merits. We were personally encouraged to understand which studies were actually true and what were just faking. This I am applying even now. If anything new comes up I am able to understand and make out merit or even realise that it is not right.We were also encouraged to participate in conferences and attend hands on training. I did Microvascular training, ATLS training and Laparoscopic hands on training. Even cadaveric dissections were done. This is how I was able to chose my speciality of Plastic surgery.Apart from this lot of stress is on new technology. I was trained on laparoscopic surgeries, I assisted in lot of Laparoscopic Whipple, Laparoscopic Bariatric and even got to assist in ROBOTIC surgeries.This is not even seen by most of the other residents. I understand that I only got to assist but you can learn a lot be seeing pioneers perform the surgery. In fact, after doing My MCH I have been attending observerships to learn and this will continue life Long nobody gives you a direct hands on because ultimately life of a person is on line.Why do people say bad things about PG at AIIMS, New DelhiFaculty is involved in most aspects, so although it is a good thing but this also leads to looking at every action by microscope. Room for error is very low. Case in point being 2 rounds of faculty and 2 rounds by sr everyday.High work load of patients. The OPDS are crowded, surgery are overbooked, amount of patient is staggering. So you are overworked. Personal time is almost non existent.Many people who do not want surgery take that up in counselling thinking once they will get medicine in other institute they will leave. They are never happy. I had 3 people who took up surgery residency and leave in 2 months after announcement of results of other colleges. This is the problem with system as person who wants to do medicine will never be happy doing surgery.As this is a tertiary centre with referrals form all over the country we get to see the rarest of rare cases. But the time period is of 3 years so we lag out on common cases. We do a limited amount of appendicitis's and perforations (but we do them and that to lap appendices). So in comparison to person from other places we might end up doing lesser appendicectomy.It will teach you how to be a great surgeon but there will not be hand holding. You will have to do it on your own.Ultimately it is more important what you want to do . If you want to do medicine do not take surgery as you will not like it and find reasons to dislike it. Personal experience, I will not trade it for another college. PS (I did MCH plastic surgery from Safdarjung because plastic surgery department was not there when I completed my MS)

First and foremost, I want to correct comments made on June 9th by Tristan Walker pertaining to the so-called ban on using federal funds for research on gun control research. As much as I hate to criticize a fellow Texan, Mr. Walker would be well-advised to actually read the Wikipedia link he supplied.In his comment, Mr. Walker said: “So the biggest flaw in gun control research is that there isn’t any - it’s forbidden by federal law.” This is untrue.The Dickie Amendment includes the following wording: "(N)one of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."The Dickie Amendment does not prohibit the use of federal funds for legitimate, unbiased research. It furthermore does not prohibit the CDC from doing such research. As the Wikipedia entry notes, Cortney Lenard, a spokesperson for the CDC, told the Washington Post in 2013 that: "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."Ms. Lenard’s statement is quite true. However in the year prior to the passage of the Dickie Amendment, the CDC’s total budget for “gun violence” research was just $2.6 million, slightly more than a quarter of the amount requested by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. The groups also requested that Congress repeal the Dickie Amendment. It’s worth noting that the CDC’s budget has been cut several times since the Dickie Amendment and the budget proposed by President Trump wants to cut it by 17% this year.There is nothing in the Dickie Amendment that prohibits research by groups using non-federal funds, including grants and similar sources.What it does prohibit is the use of federal money for advocacy.It’s important to realize that the CDC publishes annual statistics on fatal and non-fatal injuries every year. This information is available to anyone. There are certain restrictions on some data including a prohibition on using it to identify individuals or “establishments,” not disclosing such identifying information, limiting use of data for research or analysis, and a prohibition on using death counts with fewer than nine entries because they may be unreliable.The problem comes not so much from the data as it does from the selective interpretation of the numbers.According to the media and advocacy groups, “gun violence” is a major problem that can only be addressed by stricter gun control laws. Yet CDC data show that firearms, including BB guns, account for about 4.9% of all violence-related deaths and injuries requiring at least emergency room treatment. Guns are used in 72.9% of homicides and non-negligent manslaughters but play only as small part in the overall problem of violence. From that, it would seem to be obvious that it’s impossible to do anything about gun violence, knife violence, club violence or bare-hands-and-feet violence unless one addresses the causes of violence.Several answers have noted that suicides are included in “gun violence” to inflate the numbers. But none of the gun-control advocates have pointed out that use of firearms in suicides is declining, falling from nearly 60% to slightly less than half. The also fail to note that the firearm tally is so high because white males are the most likely to commit suicide and the most likely to use a gun to do it. Only about a third of females use a gun to commit suicide. California is a prime example of the paradox that the gun-control fans face: the suicide rate has increased (as it has done nationally), but the use of guns in suicides has fallen to about 34%. This kind of pokes big holes in the supposed link between firearms and suicides.The classic example is what many call the “gun show myth.” This common misrepresentation of facts is based on the 1997 National Institute of Justice report entitled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. It reported on a survey conducted in 1994 by Chilton Research Services. The telephone survey was led and reported by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig and covered 2,568 adults. Out of that number, a total of 251, less than 10%, had acquired a gun in the past two years and were willing to say how they got. Even Cook admitted that 251 was not a reliable sample size.Of the 251 responses as to how the gun was acquired, 60% said the gun was purchased at a gun shop, pawn shop or other retailer, such as a sporting goods store. It’s quite true that 100% minus 60% leaves 40%. However, that 40% has been used to say “40% of gun sales don’t involve a background check” or “40% of guns are purchased at gun shows without a background check” and other nonsense.In the first place, the study covered acquisitions from 1992 to 1994. The federal government didn’t begin requiring background checks until February of 1994. Any firearm purchased before then only required a background check if a state required it.In the second place, one has to add gifts or purchases from family or friends. That group accounted for 29% of acquisitions, many of which wouldn’t be covered by universal background check laws. So we’re up to 89%. Then we have to add 3% bought via mail order, which federal law requires to be processed through a federally licensed dealer. Another 4% said they didn’t remember or acquired their gun some other way. We’re now up to 96%.Gun shows accounted for four percent of the purchases. Not 40% - 4%. And since the majority of gun show sales since 1986, when licensed dealers were allowed to sell at gun shows, have been through dealers, the actual percentage of guns purchased in face-to-face private sales (i.e. no federal paperwork, no background check) is impossible to determine. That was another flaw in the study: they failed to ask if the person had completed a BATFE Form 4473 (yellow form), which would have provided more reliable data.Third, a study of federal prison inmates conducted by the FBI and a 2013 study of inmates in the Cook County (IL) jail conducted by Duke University and the University of Chicago produced similar findings: criminals very rarely buy their guns at gun shows. The studies said that between 2% and 4% of guns the convicts had used were sourced at gun shows. Thefts, “loans” from family and friends and illegal sales accounted for the majority of the firearms.But for 20 years, gun-control advocates have promoted the myth as if it was gospel truth.So flaws in gun control research aren’t necessarily the results of the actual research itself. The numbers are what they are and have no skin at all in the debate.The primary flaw in gun control research is bias, beginning with the construction of the study, including things like cherry-picking sources, leading questions and recording a refusal to answer or the inability to answer as a “yes” or “no,” depending on the desired outcome and interpreting the data to fit that outcome.The secondary flaw lies in how the data is reported. For example, a CDC official, commenting on firearm-related fatalities on a TV show, said the agency’s data indicated a rather low number, but there “might have been more.” One person with whom I was having a discussion threw that one at me. I responded by saying that the only basis for a rational discussion was what was actually reported, not speculation about what might have been. That didn’t go over too well and the other person preferred to stick with imaginary numbers.