RSDI

AcronymDefinition
RSDIRegional Spatial Data Infrastructure
RSDIRoad Safety Development Index (transportation engineering)
RSDIRetirement and Survivors Disability Insurance (Social Security Administration)
References in periodicals archive ?
The two groups had similar RSDI scores at the beginning of the study, 61.2 in the nasal saline group and 63.5 in the antibiotic group.
After 11 months, the nasal saline group's RSDI score had increased 15.9 points to 77.1, while the antibiotic group's score remained about the same, at 64.4.
Experimental group RSDI scores improved from 58.4 [+ or -] 2.0 to 72.8 [+ or -] 2.2 (P [less than or equal to] .05) compared with those of the control group (from 59.6 [+ or -] 3.0 to 60.4 [+ or -] 1.1); experimental group SIA scores improved from 3.9 [+ or -] 0.1 to 2.4 [+ or -] 0.1 (P [less than or equal to] .05) compared with those of the control group (from 4.08 [+ or -] 0.15 to 4.07 [+ or -] 0.27).
Power calculations performed before study initiation indicated that a sample size of 60 subjects would provide 80% power to detect a 10% difference in the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI) between study groups.
The primary outcomes were QOL scores from 2 validated questionnaires: the general health assessment Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form (SF-12) (20) and the RSDI, (21) a disease-specific instrument assessing QOL in emotional, functional, and physical domains.
Dropouts tended to have slightly better baseline RSDI scores than non-dropouts, 66.8 vs 58.1 points, but this difference was not significant (P = .15).
For our study, the RSDI was adapted for Internet use by a Web-design firm, and the survey was posted on the Web site of the Sinus and Allergy Health Partnership (SAHP; www.sahp.org).
In general, RSDI scores indicated that women tended to be more negatively affected by their disease than men (table 1).
In general, overall RSDI scores indicated that patients with allergic rhinitis were least affected by their disease and patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were most affected by it.
Respondents received instant feedback on their scores, and they were told how their scores compared with historical RSDI values reported by Senior et al.4 Another advantage of our use of the SAHP's Web site was that it allowed us to survey six times as many patients as Senior et al did in their initial report of the RSDI (n = 142).