1,720,965 research outputs found
Evaluation of an early interdisciplinary multimodal assessment for patients with pain: Protocol of a randomized controlled study (PAIN2020)
No full textUntersuchung der Validität und Spezifität des Constant Scores zur Beurteilung der Schulterfunktion
No full textUntersuchung der Validität und Spezifität des Constant Scores zur Beurteilung der Schulterfunktion
No full textStellenwert der sonographischen Diagnostik postoperativ auftretender tiefer Beinvenenthrombosen : prospektive Studie nach Hüft-Endoprothesenimplantation
No full textSonographische Verlaufsuntersuchungen der Säuglingshüfte und ihre therapeutischen Konsequenzen für die Behandlung der kongenitalen Hüftdysplasie
No full textAktuelle Möglichkeiten und Grenzen konservativer Behandlungsstrategien am Schulter- und Ellenbogengelenk 5. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Schulter- und Ellenbogenchirurgie (DVSE), 18./19. September 1998 in Staffelstein, Bamberg ; Abstrakts
No full textPilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding
Get PDFBackground: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters’ subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
- …
