1,720,982 research outputs found
COVID-19 pandemic: preferences and barriers for dissemination of evidence syntheses
No full textZusammenfassung Hintergrund Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen.Abstract Background In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. Objective Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. Methods Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI. Results Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents\‘ prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. Conclusion Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen.Abstract Background In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. Objective Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. Methods Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI. Results Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents\‘ prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. Conclusion Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness
Informing pandemic management in Germany with trustworthy, living evidence syntheses and guideline development: lessons learned from the COVID-19 evidence ecosystem (CEOsys)
No full textObjectivesWe present the ‘COVID-19 evidence ecosystem’ (CEOsys) as a German network to inform pandemic management and to support clinical and public health decision-making. We discuss challenges faced when organizing the ecosystem and derive lessons learned for similar networks acting during pandemics or health-related crises.Study Design and SettingBringing together 18 university hospitals and additional institutions, CEOsys key activities included research prioritization, conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs), supporting evidence-based (living) guidelines, knowledge translation (KT), detecting research gaps, and deriving recommendations, backed by technical infrastructure and capacity building.ResultsCEOsys rapidly produced 31 high-quality evidence syntheses and supported three living guidelines on COVID-19-related topics, while also developing methodological procedures. Challenges included CEOsys’ late initiation in relation to the pandemic outbreak, the delayed prioritization of research questions, the continuously evolving COVID-19-related evidence, and establishing a technical infrastructure. Methodological-clinical tandems, the cooperation with national guideline groups and international collaborations were key for efficiency.ConclusionCEOsys provided a proof-of-concept for a functioning evidence ecosystem at the national level. Lessons learned include that similar networks should, among others, involve methodological and clinical key stakeholders early on, aim for (inter)national collaborations, and systematically evaluate their value. We particularly call for a sustainable network
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
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
A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Online Survey on the Treatment of COVID-19-ARDS: High Variance in Standard of Care in German ICUs
No full textIntroduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and—in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed—better communication to care providers. Methods: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. Results: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. Conclusions: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care.Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and—in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed—better communication to care providers. Methods: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. Results: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. Conclusions: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care
- …
