1,720,995 research outputs found
Development methodology, availability and implementation of core outcome sets in pediatric surgery
No full textCore outcome sets (COSs) provide a mechanism to guide researchers and clinicians when deciding which outcomes to report in research related to a specific clinical condition or intervention. The intention behind creating a COS for a specific condition is to improve the reporting of important and meaningful outcomes, thus enhancing the relevance of research. Additionally, a COS helps facilitate comparison of outcomes between different clinical studies and reduces research waste. In this paper, we discuss the availability of COSs in the field of pediatric general surgery. We provide an overview of the methodologies used to develop a COS, including common pitfalls, and finally, we discuss COS uptake and implementation. An understanding of all these aspects is important for researchers considering developing a new COS and for those reading research where a COS has been developed or used within a study. Failure to adequately appreciate the nuances of COS development, in particular, risks fundamental flaws that may jeopardize COS validity and subsequently hinder COS uptake and implementation.<br/
Development of a core outcome set for use in determining the overall success of gastroschisis treatment.
Full text linkBackground: Gastroschisis research is limited in quality by the presence of significant heterogeneity in outcome measure reporting (PloS One 10(1):e0116908, 2015). Using core outcome sets in research is one proposed method for addressing this problem (Trials 13:103, 2012; Clin Rheumatol 33(9):1313-1322, 2014; Health Serv Res Policy 17(1):1-2, 2012). Ultimately, standardising outcome measure reporting will improve research quality and translate into improvements in patient care.Methods/design: Candidate outcome measures have been identified through systematic reviews. These outcome measures will form the starting point for an online, three-phase Delphi process that will be carried out in parallel by three panels of experts. Panel 1 is a neonatal panel, panel 2 is a non-neonatal panel and panel 3 is a lay panel.In round 1, experts will be asked to score the previously identified outcome measures from 1–9 based on how important they think the measures are in determining the overall success of their/their child’s/their patient’s gastroschisis treatment.In round 2, experts will be presented with the same list of outcome measures and with graphical representations of how their panel scored that outcome in round 1. They will be asked to re-score the outcome measure taking into account how important other members of their panel felt it to be. In round 3, experts will again be asked to re-score each outcome measure, but this time they will receive a graphical representation of the distribution of scores from all three panels which they should take into account when re-scoring.Following round 3 of the Delphi process, 40 experts will be invited to attend a face-to-face consensus meeting. Participants will be invited in a purposive manner to obtain balance between the different panels. The results of the Delphi process will be discussed, and outcomes re-scored. Outcome measures where?>?70 % of the participants at the meeting scored them as 7–9 and?<?15 % scored them as 1–3 will form the core outcome set.Discussion: Development of a core outcome set will help to reduce the heterogeneity of the outcome measure reporting in gastroschisis. This will increase the quality of research taking place and ultimately improve care provided to infants with gastroschisis.<br/
Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set
No full textObjectiveOutcome reporting heterogeneity impedes identification of gold-standard treatmentsfor children born with gastroschisis. Use of core outcome sets (COS) in research reducesoutcome reporting heterogeneity and ensures that studies are relevant to patients. Theaim of this study was to develop a gastroschisis COS.Design and SettingSystematic reviews and stakeholder nomination were used to identify candidateoutcomes that were subsequently prioritised by key stakeholders in a three-phaseonline Delphi process and face-face consensus meeting using a nine-point Likert scale.In phases two and three of the Delphi process, participants were shown graphical andnumerical representations of their own, and all panels scores for each outcomerespectively and asked to review their previous score in light of this information.Outcomes were carried forward to the consensus meeting if prioritised by two or threestakeholder panels in the third phase of the Delphi process. The COS was formed fromoutcomes with consensus meeting scores ≥70% 7–9 and <15% 1-3.Results71 participants (84%) completed all phases of the Delphi process, during which, 87outcomes were assessed. Eight outcomes, mortality, sepsis, growth, number ofoperations, severe gastrointestinal complication, time on parenteral nutrition, liverdisease and quality of life for the child met criteria for inclusion in the COS.ConclusionsEight outcomes have been included in the gastroschisis COS as a result of theirimportance to key stakeholders. Implementing use of the COS will increase the potentialfor identification of gold standard treatments for the management of children born withgastroschisis
Association between timing of re-introduction of enteral feeding and short-term outcomes following laparotomy for Necrotising Enterocolitis
No full textPurpose: To investigate the relationship between timing of re-introduction of feeds following surgery for Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC) and important early outcomes.Methods: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from paediatric surgical units in UK/Ireland of infants who underwent laparotomy for NEC between 01/03/2013 and 28/02/2014. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare the relationship of early (≤ 7 days) and later (8-27 days) re-introduction of feeding after surgery on death or need for PN at 28 days, correcting for known cofounders.Results: 41/143 infants (29%) received early and 102/143 infants (71%) had delayed reintroduction of feeding. Infants in the early feeding group had a higher gestational age at birth, higher proportion of growth restriction, lower inotrope requirement, and weremore likely to have undergone primary anastomosis. Following adjustment there was no statistically significant difference detected in the rate of death or need for PN at 28 days, adjusted OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-1.1), noting the limited statistical power of this comparison.Conclusions: There is no evidence from this study to support a minimum period of 7 days nil by mouth post laparotomy for infants with NEC. Early feed reintroduction following laparotomy for NEC is safe in appropriate cases.Level of evidence: Level II - Treatment Study Group; Prospective comparative study.Keywords: Bowel rest; Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC); Neonatal; Total parenteral nutrition (TPN); Treatment.<br/
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
