1,721,017 research outputs found
Update on anticancer drugs
No full textUpdate on anticancer drugs. A thorough review of the clinical trials published over the last two years in major medical and oncological journals on a comprehensive spectrum of oncological conditions aims to provide at the same time (as the authors are well known representatives of the critical and complementary competences of clinical care and research methodology) an interesting double opportunity of update on: a) what is truly (i.e.documented and reliable) innovative and deserves adoption in daily care,vs what is either purely suggestive or clearly misleading; b) what are the methological, concrete, simple rules to observe in a field which is certainly moving fast, but at the same time generates highly controversial behaviors in research as well as in daily practices. The accompanying editorial (pag 60-63) further illustrates the way and the yield of using this material and approach both in the areas of nursing sciences and practice
Preliminary evaluation of the use of combined “Prokoboll” sex pheromone trap for Dacus oleae (Gmel.).
No full text
Sex difference in circulating platelet aggregates and response to antiplatelet treatment.
No full text
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
- …
