1,721,024 research outputs found
Once-daily basal insulin glargine versus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro in people with type 2 diabetes on oral hypoglycaemic agents (APOLLO): an open randomised controlled trial
Full text linkBackground As type 2 diabetes mellitus progresses, oral hypoglycaemic agents often fail to maintain blood glucose
control and insulin is needed. We investigated whether the addition of once-daily insulin glargine is non-inferior to
three-times daily prandial insulin lispro in overall glycaemic control in adults with inadequately controlled type 2
diabetes mellitus taking oral hypoglycaemic agents.
Methods In the 44-week, parallel, open study that was undertaken in 69 study sites across Europe and Australia,
418 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that was inadequately controlled by oral hypoglycaemic agents were
randomly assigned to either insulin glargine taken once daily at the same time every day or to insulin lispro
administered three times per day. The primary objective was to compare the change in haemoglobin A1c from baseline
to endpoint (week 44) between the two regimens. Randomisation was done with a central randomisation service.
Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00311818.
Findings 205 patients were randomly assigned to insulin glargine and 210 to insulin lispro. Mean haemoglobin A1c
decrease in the insulin glargine group was –1·7% (from 8·7% [SD 1·0] to 7·0% [0·7]) and –1·9% in the insulin lispro
group (from 8·7% [1·0] to 6·8% [0·9]), which was within the predefi ned limit of 0·4% for non-inferiority
(diff erence=0·157; 95% Cl –0·008 to 0·322). 106 (57%) patients reached haemoglobin A1c of 7% or less in the glargine
group and 131 (69%) in the lispro group. In the glargine group, the fall in mean fasting blood glucose (–4·3 [SD 2·3]
mmol/L vs –1·8 [2·3] mmol/L; p<0·0001) and nocturnal blood glucose (–3·3 [2·8] mmol/L vs –2·6 [2·9] mmol/L;
p=0·0041) was better than it was in the insulin lispro group, whereas insulin lispro better controlled postprandial
blood glucose throughout the day (p<0·0001). The incidence of hypoglycaemic events was less with insulin glargine
than with lispro (5·2 [95% CI 1·9–8·9] vs 24·0 [21–28] events per patient per year; p<0·0001). Respective mean weight
gains were 3·01 (SD 4·33) kg and 3·54 (4·48) kg. The improvement of treatment satisfaction was greater for insulin
glargine than for insulin lispro (mean diff erence 3·13; 95% CI 2·04–4·22).
Interpretation A therapeutic regimen involving the addition of either basal or prandial insulin analogue is equally
eff ective in lowering haemoglobin A1c. We conclude that insulin glargine provides a simple and eff ective option that is
more satisfactory to patients than is lispro for early initiation of insulin therapy, since it was associated with a lower
risk of hypoglycaemia, fewer injections, less blood glucose self monitoring, and greater patient satisfaction than was
insulin lispro
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
Response to comment on home et Al. Insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes: opportunities and challenges? Diabetes Care 2014;37:1499–1508
No full textAppropriate 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
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe 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
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
