1,720,971 research outputs found

    Comparing Loop and Divided Colostomy for Anorectal Malformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    No full text
    Introduction: The optimal type of colostomy for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of loop colostomies (LC) versus divided colostomies (DC) in patients with ARM. Methods: After review registration (PROSPERO: CRD42024513335), we searched multiple databases for comparative studies on LCs and DCs in patients with ARMs. Gray literature was sought. The complications examined included stoma prolapse, urinary tract infection (UTI), skin excoriation, stoma retraction, parastomal hernia, wound infection rate, and stoma stricture. Three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis of selected complications was performed using Revman 5.4, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Eleven studies were included in the analysis, incorporating a total of 2550 neonates with ARMs, of which 1147 underwent LCs and 1403 underwent DCs. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of stoma prolapse (OR: 1.55, 95 % CI: 0.63 to 3.79; p = 0.34), UTIs (OR: 1.78, 95 % CI: 0.50 to 6.36; p = 0.38), skin excoriation (OR: 1.26, 95 % CI: 0.68 to 2.34; p = 0.46), stoma retraction (OR: 0.79, 95 % CI: 0.09 to 6.64; p = 0.83), parastomal hernia (OR: 0.99, 95 % CI: 0.22 to 4.48; p = 0.99), wound infection (OR: 0.35, 95 % CI: 0.10 to 1.20; p = 0.10), and stoma stricture (OR: 0.70, 95 % CI: 0.22 to 2.18; p = 0.53). Conclusions: The findings suggest that LCs and DCs are viable options for fecal diversion, presenting similar risks and benefits. The choice between these techniques should consider individual patient characteristics and surgical expertise. Type of Study: Meta-analysis. Level of evidence: II

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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 link
    We 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 link
    We 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

    Author Index

    No full text
    Nao informado

    koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist

    No full text
    We have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used

    Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Congenital Duodenal Obstruction Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    No full text
    Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery (LS) compared to open surgery (OS) for congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO). Methods: We conducted a literature review to find studies comparing LS and OS in neonates with CDO. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically compile and compare factors, including surgical duration, time of feeding initiation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Results: Eleven studies with 1615 patients (LS: 338, OS: 1277) met inclusion criteria. Operative time was observed to be much shorter in the OS group (I2 = 97%); weighted mean difference (WMD) 60.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.29 to 90.28; p < 0.0001). The LS group had a significantly shorter time to initiate feeding (I2 = 0%; WMD -3.38, 95% CI: −4.35 to −2.41; p < 0.00001), shorter time to full feeding (I2 = 0%; WMD -3.64, 95% CI: −5.06 to −2.22; p < 0.00001), and shorter LOS (I2 = 52%; WMD -3.42, 95% CI: −5.75 to −1.08; p = 0.004). There were no significantly differences in the rates of anastomotic leak (I2 = 24%; OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.12 to 4.67; p = 0.76), anastomotic stricture (I2 = 0%; OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.39 to 3.20; p = 0.83), postoperative ileus (I2 = 0%; OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.74; p = 0.34), and overall complications between the groups (I2 = 59%; OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.74; p = 0.68). The LS group, however, had a significantly decreased frequency of wound infection (I2 = 0%; OR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.82; p = 0.02). Conclusion: Despite certain limitations in our analysis, the laparoscopic approach was associated with comparable postoperative outcomes. Levels of Evidence: 2a. Type of the Study: Meta analysis
    corecore