1,721,011 research outputs found
Comparative effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with valve placement: a randomised controlled trial
No full textBackground: lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs) can improve lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in appropriately selected patients with emphysema. However, no direct comparison data exists to inform clinical decision-making in people who appear suitable for both procedures. Our aim was to investigate whether LVRS produces superior health outcomes when compared to BLVR at 12 months.Methods: the CELEB study was a multi-centre, single-blind parallel-group trial randomising patients from five UK hospitals, who were suitable for a targeted lung volume reduction procedure, to either LVRS or BLVR, and comparing outcomes at one year using the i-BODE score. This composite disease severity measure includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). The researchers responsible for collecting outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: between 16 th September 2016 and 22 nd July 2019, 88 participants (48% female, mean (±SD) age 64.6±7.7, FEV 1 %predicted 31.0±7.9) were recruited at five specialist centres across the UK and randomised to either LVRS(n=41) or BLVR(n=47). At 12 months follow up, the complete i-BODE was available in 49 participants (21 LVRS/ 28 BLVR). Neither improvement in the i-BODE composite score (LVRS: -1.10 (1.44), BLVR: -0.82 (1.61) p=0.54) nor its individual components differed between treatment arms. Both treatments produced similar improvements in gas trapping; RV% predicted (LVRS -36.1 (-54.1, -10), BLVR: -30.1 (-53.7, -9) p=0.81). There was one death in each treatment arm.Interpretation: our findings do not support the hypothesis that LVRS is a substantially superior treatment to BLVR in individuals who are suitable for both treatments.Trial Registration Details: the trial was registered prospectively; ISRCTN19684749.Funding Information: this project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-1014-35051). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Imperial College, London will support the reporting of this manuscript. Trial sponsor representative: Patrik Pettersson, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (RB&HFT), Royal Brompton Hospital.Declaration of Interests: PLS and DW have received payment from PulmonX for educational lectures. NG has received grants to institution from GSK and Genentech and grants for lectures and travel from AZ and Chiesi. RL is a member of the British Thoracic Society COPD Specialist Advisory group, a member of South Yorkshire Clinical Senate and a member of South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Respiratory Clinical Network. All other authors have nothing to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: ethical approval was obtained from Fulham Research Ethics Committee, London, UK (REC reference: 16/LO/0286). The trial protocol has been published previously (20). A trial steering committee with an independent chair met quarterly to review progress, conduct and safety throughout the course of the trial
Eligibility for lung volume reduction in patients with COPD attending pulmonary rehabilitation
No full textBackground: lung volume reduction (LVR) therapies are highly effective in appropriately selected patients with COPD. NICE (2018) guidance recommends offering a respiratory review for LVR assessment at the end of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), if certain criteria apply. Few data exist on likely numbers potentially eligible according to these criteria [1].Methods: data from the 2015 and 2017 UK Royal College of Physicians National Asthma and COPD Audits were used to identify numbers of patients completing PR potentially eligible to be assessed for LVR based on NICE guidelines; FEV1<50%, 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) ≥140m, ex or non smoker and limiting breathlessness [1]. We used a cut off of >80m for the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and breathlessness criteria of either MRC dyspnoea score >3 or ≥3.Results: 8,295 (55.7%) of 14,889 patients in programs using ISWT or 6MWD to assess change in exercise capacity completed PR, and 4,856 (32.6%) had complete data recorded. Of these 310 (6.4%) were eligible to be considered for LVR assessment, at a breathlessness threshold of MRC score >3. Relaxing the criteria to include MRC≥3, meant 881 (18.1%) would be eligible.Conclusions: a systematic approach to identify potential candidates for LVR, during and at the end of PR, is desirable. Approaches for the appropriate evaluation of non-completers also need to be considered
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
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
Lung volume reduction eligibility in patients with COPD completing pulmonary rehabilitation: results from the UK National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme
No full textObjectives: to establish what proportion of patients completing a UK pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme meet the 2018 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guideline (NG115) criteria to have a respiratory review to establish whether referral to a lung volume reduction multidisciplinary team would be appropriate. This respiratory review would include evaluation of the presence of hyperinflation and the presence of emphysema on CT scan. The NICE criteria include measures of breathlessness and exercise capacity but these parameters are not completely defined.Design: observational study.Setting: PR programmes across the UK in 2015 (210 centres) and 2017 (184 centres) entering data into the Royal College of Physicians’ National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme.Participants: 8295 (55.7%) of 14 889 patients in programmes using incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) or 6-minute walk test (6MWT) as an outcome measure completed PR, and 4856 (32.6%) had complete data recorded (6MWT/ISWT, baseline spirometry, Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score).Results: depending on the walking test safety threshold adopted for the ISWT (≥140 m or ≥ 80 m) and the MRC dyspnoea score threshold used (MRC score ≥3 or ≥4 at the end of PR), between 4.9% and 18.1% of PR completers met the NICE criteria for a lung volume reduction-focused respiratory review.Conclusions: lung volume reduction therapies are beneficial in appropriately selected patients with COPD, but few procedures are performed, and treatment pathways are unclear. These data help to inform the feasibility of the approach recommended by NICE and highlight the need for future systematic pathways to reduce inequalities in patients being considered for effective treatment
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
- …
