1,720,965 research outputs found
Levels of Evidence in Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Systematic Review.
Get PDFA prolific trend currently designates endoscopic
ultrasonography (EUS) literature. We aimed to record all EUS-studies published
during the past decade and evaluate them in terms of scientific quality, creating
a stratification based on levels of evidence (LE). METHODS: All articles on EUS
published between January 2001 and December 2010 were retrieved using a Pubmed
and Cochrane Library search. Inclusion criteria were: original research papers
(randomized controlled trials-RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies),
meta-analyses, reviews and surveys pertinent to gastrointestinal EUS. Levels of
evidence (LE) were assessed using the North of England evidence-based guidelines.
RESULTS: Overall, 1,832 eligible articles were reviewed. The majority (46.1%) of
reports comprised retrospective descriptive studies (LE III). Expert reviews and
committee reports (LE IV) accounted for 28.9%, well-designed quasi-experimental
studies (LE IIb) for 20.1%, RCTs (LE Ib) for 2.4%, prospective controlled trials
(LE IIa) for 1.4%, and meta-analyses (LE Ia) for 1.1% of the total. High LE
(Ia-Ib) were assigned to loco-regional staging of luminal gastrointestinal
cancers; mediastinal staging of lung cancer; diagnostic work-up of solid
pancreatic tumors, suspected biliary obstruction and choledocholithiasis; celiac
plexus neurolysis; and pancreatic pseudocysts drainage. Intermediate to low LE
(IIa-IV) were assigned to submucosal tumors, pancreatic cysts, chronic
pancreatitis and novel therapeutic applications (pancreato-biliary drainage,
tumor ablation). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic and staging EUS has matured and has
proven its clinical impact on patient management. Therapeutic or interventional
EUS is still evolving and more quality research and data are needed to establish
EUS as the best next intervention to perform once firm evidence is available
Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review.
No full textAl-Haddad M, 2010, ENDOSCOPY, V42, P127, DOI 10.1055-s-0029-1215351; Bournet B, 2009, ENDOSCOPY, V41, P552, DOI 10.1055-s-0029-1214717; Brugge WR, 2004, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V126, P1330, DOI 10.1053-j.gastro.2004.02.013; Canto MI, 2006, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V4, P766, DOI 10.1016-j.cgh.2006.02.005; Catalano MF, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V69, P1251, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2008.07.043; Chowdhury R, 2005, PANCREAS, V31, P63, DOI 10.1097-01.mpa.0000164451.69265.80; de Paulo GA, 2006, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V63, P396, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2005.10.039; DeWitt J, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V70, P710, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2009.03.1173; DeWitt J, 2008, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V68, P499, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2008.02.092; Dietrich CF, 2008, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V6, P590, DOI 10.1016-j.cgh.2008.02.030; DIMAGNO EP, 1980, LANCET, V1, P629; Eccles M, 2002, J HEALTH SERV RES PO, V7, P98; Eccles M, 1996, QUAL HEALTH CARE, V5, P44, DOI 10.1136-qshc.5.1.44; Eccles M, 1996, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V312, P760; Eloubeidi MA, 2005, ANN THORAC SURG, V79, P263, DOI 10.1016-j.athoracsur.2004.06.089; Eloubeidi MA, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V71, P745, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2009.10.022; Fernandez-Esparrach G, 2010, ENDOSCOPY, V42, P292, DOI 10.1055-s-0029-1244074; Fernandez-Esparrach G, 2007, ENDOSCOPY, V39, P720, DOI 10.1055-s-2007-966719; Fusaroli P, 2011, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V45, P400, DOI 10.1097-MCG.0b013e3181fbde42; Fusaroli P, 2002, ENDOSCOPY, V34, P451, DOI 10.1055-s-2002-32006; Gan SI, 2007, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V66, P425, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2007.05.026; Garrow D, 2007, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V5, P616, DOI 10.1016-j.cgh.2007.02.027; Harewood GC, 2002, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V123, P24, DOI 10.1053-gast.2002.34163; Hassan H, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V71, P500, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2009.10.044; Hollerbach S, 2003, ENDOSCOPY, V35, P743; Iglesias-Garcia J, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V70, P1101, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2009.05.011; Janssen J, 2004, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V59, P339, DOI 10.1016-S0016-5107(03)02707-X; Khalid A, 2006, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V101, P2493, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2006.00740.x; Larsen SS, 2005, LUNG CANCER-J IASLC, V48, P85, DOI 10.1016-j.lungcan.2004.10.002; Larsen SS, 2005, LUNG CANCER-J IASLC, V49, P377, DOI 10.1016-j.lungcan.2005.04.005; Ledro-Cano D, 2007, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V19, P1007; Lee YT, 2002, ENDOSCOPY, V34, P391, DOI 10.1055-s-2002-25286; Liu CL, 2005, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V3, P1238, DOI 10.1016-S1542-3565(05)00619-1; Maluf F, 2009, ENDOSCOPY, V41, P979, DOI 10.1055-s-0029-1215192; Martinez-Ares D, 2005, REV ESP ENFERM DIG, V97, P416; Micames CG, 2007, CHEST, V131, P539, DOI 10.1378-chest.06-1437; Napoleon B, 2010, ENDOSCOPY, V42, P564, DOI 10.1055-s-0030-1255537; Ngamruengphong S, 2010, DIS ESOPHAGUS, V23, P216, DOI 10.1111-j.1442-2050.2009.00989.x; Park SR, 2008, CANCER, V112, P2368, DOI 10.1002-cncr.23483; Philipper M, 2010, ENDOSCOPY, V42, P300, DOI 10.1055-s-0029-1244006; Preston SR, 2003, BRIT J SURG, V90, P1220, DOI 10.1002-bjs.4268; Puli S, 2009, ANN SURG ONCOL, V16, P254, DOI 10.1245-s10434-008-0231-5; Puli SR, 2008, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V14, P1479, DOI 10.3748-wjg.14.1479; Puli SR, 2008, DIGEST DIS SCI, V53, P2405, DOI 10.1007-s10620-007-0152-3; Puli SR, 2009, DIGEST DIS SCI, V54, P2330, DOI 10.1007-s10620-008-0651-x; Puli SR, 2008, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V14, P4011, DOI 10.3748-wjg.14.4011; Puli SR, 2007, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V65, P788, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2006.08.028; Puri R, 2009, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V44, P499, DOI 10.1080-00365520802647392; Qadeer MA, 2009, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V136, P1568, DOI 10.1053-j.gastro.2009.02.004; Romagnuolo J, 2004, CAN J GASTROENTEROL, V18, P435; Rosch T, 2002, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V37, P856, DOI 10.1080-713786521; Sackett DL, 1996, BRIT MED J, V312, P71; Saftoiu A, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V72, P739, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2010.02.056; Siddiqui UD, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V70, P1093, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2009.05.037; Song TJ, 2010, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V105, P1739, DOI 10.1038-ajg.2010.108; Stevens T, 2010, DIGEST DIS SCI, V55, P2681, DOI 10.1007-s10620-009-1084-x; Tang SA, 2011, EUR J RADIOL, V78, P142, DOI 10.1016-j.ejrad.2009.09.026; Tse F, 2008, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V67, P235, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2007.09.047; Varadarajulu S, 2008, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V68, P1102, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2008.04.028; Varadarajulu S, 2007, ALIMENT PHARM THERAP, V25, P987, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2036.2007.03285.x; Wallace MB, 2001, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V54, P441, DOI 10.1067-mge.2001.11776469
Diagnosing diffuse large B-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma by endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration of a splenic mass
No full text[No abstract available]Civardi G, 2001, AM J HEMATOL, V67, P93, DOI 10.1002-ajh.1085; Eloubeidi MA, 2006, ENDOSCOPY, V38, P617, DOI 10.1055-s-2005-921111; Eloubeidi MA, 2007, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V65, P937, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2006.08.036; Fritscher-Ravens A, 2003, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V98, P1022, DOI 10.1016-S0002-9270(03)00103-5; Iglesias-Garcia J, 2011, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V73, P1189, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2011.01.053; Iwashita T, 2009, ENDOSCOPY, V41, P179, DOI 10.1055-s-0028-11194740
Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by contrast-harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS): complementary and not competitive with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.
No full textn
Improving endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration specimens in the absence of rapid onsite evaluation: Does cytotechnologist training provide the solution?
No full text[No abstract available]Buxbaum J, DYN TEL COMP RAP ONS; Eloubeidi MA, 2006, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V101, P2841, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2006.00852.x; Iglesias-Garcia J, 2011, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V106, P1705, DOI 10.1038-ajg.2011.119; Klapman JB, 2003, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V98, P1289, DOI 10.1016-S0002-9270(03)00246-6; Layfield LJ, 2001, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V93, P319, DOI 10.1002-cncr.9046; Nasuti JF, 2001, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V25, P351, DOI 10.1002-dc.10002; Petrone MC, 2012, DIGEST LIVER DIS, V44, P311, DOI 10.1016-j.dld.2011.12.001; Yan A, AM GAST ASS 20 UNPUB10
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
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“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
Get PDFWe 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
Get PDFWe 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
- …
