1,721,025 research outputs found
Epidemiological differences between back pain of sudden and gradual onset
No full textObjective: to explore possible differences in risk factors for low back pain according to its speed of onset.Methods: we analyzed longitudinal data from 1366 hospital nurses in England who initially had been free from low back pain for at least one month. Risk factors were ascertained from a self-administered baseline questionnaire, and outcomes from serial followup questionnaires. Hazard ratios (HR) for developing a first new episode of low back pain during followup were derived by Cox regression.Results: low back pain with gradual onset was significantly associated with psychological symptoms measured at baseline [HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2, 2.4) and higher], but no such association was seen for sudden pain. Low back pain with sudden onset while at work was associated with exposure to specific patient-handling tasks [HR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1, 3.0) to 2.8 (95% CI 1.4, 5.5)]. However, symptoms that came on suddenly elsewhere were not related to occupational activity, and low back pain of gradual onset showed little relation to patient-handling.Conclusion: these findings suggest that a useful distinction can be made according to the speed and circumstances of onset of low back pain. If confirmed, they have important implications for the evaluation of ergonomic interventions aimed at reducing back pain
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
Methylphenidate versus placebo for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: the MePFAC randomised controlled trial
No full textBackground: previous meta-analyses suggested methylphenidate may be effective for cancer-related fatigue. Trial design: Phase III, parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Methods: Participants were adults with advanced cancer with cancer-related fatigue receiving palliative care at 17 palliative care services in England between June 2018 and April 2023. Principal exclusions: pregnancy; glaucoma; pheochromocytoma; planned general anaesthesia; hyperthyroidism; severe psychiatric disorders; hypertension; severe cardiovascular disorders; cerebrovascular disorders; anaemia; thrombocytopenia; leucopenia; infection; renal or liver impairment; concomitant clonidine, warfarin, monoamine oxidase inhibitors or modafinil; alcohol or drug dependency; epilepsy. Interventions: methylphenidate 5 mg tablets or matching placebo. Starting at 1 tablet twice daily, titrated over 6 weeks to a maximum of 12 tablets/day. Objective: To estimate clinical effectiveness of methylphenidate versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue in patients receiving palliative care. Primary outcome: fatigue at 6 (± 2) weeks measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale score. Secondary outcomes were fatigue at other time points; quality of life, adverse events, activities of daily living; appetite; anxiety; depression; patient satisfaction; survival and need for other medication. Randomisation: Computer-generated 1: 1 randomisation, stratified by centre, concomitant treatment, depression and initial fatigue score. Blinding: participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. Results: numbers randomised: Eighty-four were allocated to methylphenidate and 78 to placebo. Recruitment: study completed. Numbers analysed: Seventy-five in methylphenidate group and 72 in placebo group were included in analysis of primary outcome. Outcome: there was no statistically or clinically significant difference in primary outcome between groups. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale scores were 1.97 points (95% confidence interval −0.95 to 4.90; p = 0.186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale score was nominally statistically significantly higher (better) in methylphenidate group across duration of study [Diff 2.20 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 4.01)] but did not reach the minimal clinically important difference (5 points). At 6 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores [nominally statistically significantly reduced in methylphenidate group: Diff −1.35 (95% confidence interval −2.41 to −0.30)]. Harms: There were 25 serious adverse events in 20 participants receiving methylphenidate and 25 serious adverse events among 16 participants receiving placebo. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences in deaths occurring within 75 days of randomisation (2 participants in placebo group and 6 participants in the methylphenidate group; Fisher’s exact p-value 0.278). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with no pattern to suggest increased harm with methylphenidate. Limitations: Participants were highly selected due to multiple exclusion criteria. The choice of 5-point difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale score as clinically significant primary outcome may be debated. Conclusions: methylphenidate did not reduce fatigue severity in patients with advanced cancer at 6 (± 2) weeks but was safe and well tolerated. Future work: Further trials of methylphenidate for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care are not recommended. There may be scope for further studies in different populations or for different indications. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 15/46/02.</p
Methyphenidate verus placebo for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial
No full textPurpose: to compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer.Methods: this is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood.Results: one hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, –0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, –1.35 [95% CI, –2.41 to –0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events.Conclusion: after 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated
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
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
- …
