1,720,978 research outputs found
sj-pdf-2-eso-10.1177_23969873221099478 – Supplemental material for European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on screening for subclinical atrial fibrillation after stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined origin
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-2-eso-10.1177_23969873221099478 for European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on screening for subclinical atrial fibrillation after stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined origin by Marta Rubiera, Ana Aires, Kateryna Antonenko, Sabrina Lémeret, Christian H Nolte, Jukka Putaala, Renate B Schnabel, Anil M Tuladhar, David J Werring, Dena Zeraatkar and Maurizio Paciaroni in European Stroke Journal</p
sj-docx-1-eso-10.1177_23969873221099478 – Supplemental material for European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on screening for subclinical atrial fibrillation after stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined origin
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-eso-10.1177_23969873221099478 for European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on screening for subclinical atrial fibrillation after stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined origin by Marta Rubiera, Ana Aires, Kateryna Antonenko, Sabrina Lémeret, Christian H Nolte, Jukka Putaala, Renate B Schnabel, Anil M Tuladhar, David J Werring, Dena Zeraatkar and Maurizio Paciaroni in European Stroke Journal</p
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
Subgroup analysis of respiratory symptoms based on patient setting.
No full textSubgroup analysis of respiratory symptoms based on patient setting.</p
Gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms.
No full textBackground and aimsOral probiotic supplementation may be a beneficial adjunctive therapy for patients with symptomatic COVID-19. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We aimed to investigate how probiotic supplementation impacts COVID-19 symptom trajectory and patient outcomes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsRCTs randomizing patients with COVID-19 to probiotics were searched in PubMed Central, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 31, 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis for all outcomes using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsA total of 1027 participants from eight RCT studies were included in the meta-analysis. Probiotic supplements probably reduce the incidence of diarrhea (RR 0.61 [0.43 to 0.87]; moderate certainty) and probably reduce cough or dyspnea compared to placebo/standard care (RR 0.37 [0.19 to 0.73]; moderate certainty). Probiotic supplements may improve composite endpoint measured by clinical escalation or mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.41 [0.18 to 0.93]; low certainty evidence); however, they may not significantly reduce the need for clinical escalation (RR 0.57 [0.31 to 1.07]; low certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 0.50 [0.20 to 1.29]; low certainty evidence). In addition, the probiotic supplement is associated with reduced adverse events (RR 0.62 [0.46 to 0.83]; moderate certainty).ConclusionEarly probiotic supplement is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy that reduces the risk of symptoms and health care burden related to COVID-19 across all severity types.</div
Risk of bias assessment.
No full textBackground and aimsOral probiotic supplementation may be a beneficial adjunctive therapy for patients with symptomatic COVID-19. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We aimed to investigate how probiotic supplementation impacts COVID-19 symptom trajectory and patient outcomes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsRCTs randomizing patients with COVID-19 to probiotics were searched in PubMed Central, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 31, 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis for all outcomes using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsA total of 1027 participants from eight RCT studies were included in the meta-analysis. Probiotic supplements probably reduce the incidence of diarrhea (RR 0.61 [0.43 to 0.87]; moderate certainty) and probably reduce cough or dyspnea compared to placebo/standard care (RR 0.37 [0.19 to 0.73]; moderate certainty). Probiotic supplements may improve composite endpoint measured by clinical escalation or mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.41 [0.18 to 0.93]; low certainty evidence); however, they may not significantly reduce the need for clinical escalation (RR 0.57 [0.31 to 1.07]; low certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 0.50 [0.20 to 1.29]; low certainty evidence). In addition, the probiotic supplement is associated with reduced adverse events (RR 0.62 [0.46 to 0.83]; moderate certainty).ConclusionEarly probiotic supplement is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy that reduces the risk of symptoms and health care burden related to COVID-19 across all severity types.</div
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
- …
