1,720,983 research outputs found
[Emergency surgery of colorectal cancer in patients older than 80 years of age]
No full textIn elderly people colorectal cancer has an high incidence of emergency presentation. In this article we report our experience on colorectal emergency surgery for cancers in patients older than 80 yrs
Emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer over 90 years of age
No full textBackground/Aims: Colorectal cancer has an extremely poor prognosis in the elderly with high rates of emergency presentation and perioperative mortality. This report examines our experience and results in the emergency treatment of patients older than 90 years with colorectal cancer. Methodology: From 1995 to 2000. 486 patients with colorectal cancer were operated on in an emergency surgery situation at the Department of Emergency Surgery of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital. A retrospective analysis of 20 patients aged 90 or older was carried out. Results: Thirteen patients underwent resection of the primary growth and anastomosis and 7 subjects with carcinomatosis had palliative intervention by creating a stoma only or bypass anastomosis without resection. We registerd two deaths caused by respiratory insufficiency and 2 postoperative complications successfully treated with medical therapy. Conclusions: Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer in patients over 90 years of age can be performed safely without restrictions related to the age
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
Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textThe aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was − 3270$ (95% CI – 4757 to − 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group
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
Stapled versus hand-sewn anastomoses in emergency intestinal surgery: results of a prospective randomized study
No full textRobotic surgery for gastric cancer in the west: A systematic review and meta-analyses of short-and long-term outcomes
No full textBackground: This review aims to merge all the western studies dealing with robotic gastrectomies (RG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence supporting the use of robotic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer also at western latitudes. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning RG in western centers. Case series and comparative studies (robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic) were included. Results: After screening 1732 articles, 10 articles with a total of 988 patients undergoing RG in western centers were eligible for inclusion. Included studies showed a relatively low risk of bias. The pooled conversion rate was 3.9% (95% CI 1.2–7.9). The pooled overall complications rate was 15% (7.1–25.3) with a mortality rate of 2.5% (1.1–4.7). The pooled 5-year overall survival rate was 60.4% (46.0–74.1). The pooled analyses of the comparative studies (robotic versus open) included 132 robotic and 305 open gastrectomies and showed comparable safety parameters. The robotic group had a pooled 5-year overall survival of 55.2% (33.7–75.8) versus 50.8% (36.4–65.2) of the open group (RR 1.10, 0.78–1.55; p = 0.248 – I2 51.8, 0.0–86.1; p = 0.125). The meta analyses of the results from the studies comparing the robotic (n = 679) and the laparoscopic (n = 1355) approach (LG) showed similar morbidity (RG 19.9%, 10.2–32.0 versus LG 15.6%, 8.7–24.0; p = 0.706) and mortality rates (RG 5.5%, 3.9–7.3 versus LG 4.3%, 3.3–5.4; p = 0.272). RG had longer operative time (RG 327 min, 297–358 versus LG 248, 222–275; p = 0.001) and lower blood loss (RG 99 ml, 96–103 versus LG 133, 104–161; p < 0.001) than laparoscopic gastrectomy. Conclusion: Based on the available data from western centers, robotic gastrectomy is comparable with the open and the laparoscopic approaches with regards to short term outcomes. Survival data of RG were similar to open gastrectomies, but studies on long-term outcomes are required to confirm these results
- …
