1,720,956 research outputs found
Short arm cast is as effective as long arm cast in maintaining distal radius fracture reduction: Results of the SLA-VER noninferiority trial
Full text linkBACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are a common challenge in orthopaedic trauma care, yet for those fractures that are treated nonoperatively, strong evidence to guide cast treatment is still lacking. AIM: To compare the efficacy of below elbow cast (BEC) and above elbow cast (AEC) in maintaining reduction of manipulated DRFs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, monocentric, randomized, parallel-group, open label, blinded, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of BEC and AEC in the nonoperative treatment of DRFs. Two hundred and eighty patients > 18 years of age diagnosed with DRFs were successfully randomized and included for analysis over a 3-year period. Noninferiority thresholds were defined as a 2 mm difference for radial length (RL), a 3° difference for radial inclination (RI), and volar tilt (VT). The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03468023). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were treated with BEC, and 137 were treated with AEC. The mean time of immobilization was 33 d. The mean loss of RL, RI, and VT was 1.59 mm, 2.83°, and 4.11° for BEC and 1.63 mm, 2.54°, and 3.52° for AEC, respectively. The end treatment differences between BEC and AEC in RL, RI, and VT loss were respectively 0.04 mm (95%CI: -0.36-0.44), -0.29° (95%CI: -1.03-0.45), and 0.59° (95%CI: -1.39-2.57), and they were all below the prefixed noninferiority thresholds. The rate of loss of reduction was similar. CONCLUSION: BEC performs as well as AEC in maintaining the reduction of a manipulated DRF. Being more comfortable to patients, BEC may be preferable for nonoperative treatment of DRFs
Below- vs above-elbow cast for distal radius fractures: is elbow immobilization really effective for reduction maintenance?
No full textPurpose: The choice of the cast length in conservative management of distal radius fractures still represents a debated controversy. Historically, the elbow is immobilized to reduce the risk of secondary displacement; however, short-arm casts are currently felt to be equally effective with less complications and better patient comfort. This paper investigates whether immobilization of the elbow is actually effective in reducing the risk of loss of reduction in conservatively manipulated distal radius fractures. Methods: We retrospectively studied 297 consecutive patients with distal radius fractures requiring manipulation and subsequently immobilized with above-elbow cast or below-elbow cast. Maintenance of reduction, radial height, radial inclination, and volar tilt were assessed after the reduction and at 35 days. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed to correct data selection bias and to assess any difference in the effectiveness among the two treatments. Results: The mean difference of loss of radial height, inclination, and volar tilt between the two groups was 0.8 mm, 0.4°, and 0.9° respectively, being not statistically significant. Average difference in reduction maintenance probability between the two groups stratified with a statistical propensity score was 1.2%. Conclusions: Above- and below-elbow casts had comparable performance in maintaining reduction of manipulated distal radius fractures
SLA-VER: study protocol description and preliminar results of the first italian RCT on conservative treatment of distal radial fractures
No full textIntroduction: There is no consensus on which is the best way to maintain initial reduction of a distal radius fractures (DRFs). The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that below elbow cast (BEC) is equivalent to above elbow cast (AEC) in maintaining initial reduction of DRFs. This paper will report on midterm results. Methods: SLA-VER is a prospective, monocentric, randomized, parallel-group, open label, blinded endpoint evaluation non-inferiority trial (PROBE design) comparing the efficacy of AECs and BECs in DRFs conservative treatment in terms of loss of radial height (RH), radial inclination (RI) and volar tilt (VT) during cast immobilization (average 35 days) of 353 consecutive DRFs. Non-inferiority thresholds are 2 mm for radial height, 3° for radial inclination and 3° for volar tilt. Study population will be 353 patients, randomized into 2 groups (AEC vs BEC). One-hundred patients have completed the study so far. Results: Patients in BEC group lost 1,75 mm of RH, 2,9° of RI and 4,5° of VT over the course of cast immobilization. Patients in AEC group lost 1,71 mm of RH, 2,2° of RI and 4,8° of VT. Raw differences between average loss of RH, RI, VT during treatment between study groups were respectively 0,04 mm, 0,7° and 0,3°. Logistic and ANCOVA models have been used to correct for confouding variables. Conclusions: Difference of loss of RH, RI and VT between the two groups are all below the non inferiority thresholds. Cast type does not seem to affect maintenance of reduction in conservatively managed DRFs
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
- …
