1,721,020 research outputs found
Empagliflozin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial
No full textBackground: empagliflozin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory, metabolic, and haemodynamic effects. The RECOVERY trial aimed to assess its safety and efficacy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods: in the randomised, controlled, open-label RECOVERY trial, several possible treatments are compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. In this analysis, we assess eligible and consenting adults who were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus oral empagliflozin 10 mg once daily for 28 days or until discharge (whichever came first) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality; secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalisation and (among participants not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline) the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation or death. On March 3, 2023 the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the investigators review the data and recruitment was consequently stopped on March 7, 2023. The ongoing RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).Findings: between July 28, 2021 and March 6, 2023, 4271 patients were randomly allocated to receive either empagliflozin (2113 patients) or usual care alone (2158 patients). Primary and secondary outcome data were known for greater than 99% of randomly assigned patients. Overall, 289 (14%) of 2113 patients allocated to empagliflozin and 307 (14%) of 2158 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96 [95% CI 0·82-1·13]; p=0·64). There was no evidence of significant differences in duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days for both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (1678 [79%] in the empagliflozin group vs 1677 [78%] in the usual care group; rate ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·96-1·10]; p=0·44). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (338 [16%] of 2084 vs 371 [17%] of 2143; risk ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·84-1·08]; p=0·44). Two serious adverse events believed to be related to empagliflozin were reported: both were ketosis without acidosis.Interpretation: in adults hospitalised with COVID-19, empagliflozin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death so is not indicated for the treatment of such patients unless there is an established indication due to a different condition such as diabetes.Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (222406/Z/20/Z).Translations: for the Nepali, Hindi, Indonesian (Bahasa) and Vietnamese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p
Baricitinib in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial and updated meta-analysis
No full textBackground: We aimed to evaluate the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1–2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was done, which included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936) and is ongoing. Findings: Between Feb 2 and Dec 29, 2021, from 10 852 enrolled, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% were receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 h recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 514 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0·87; 95% CI 0·77–0·99; p=0·028). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of eight previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths), in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·57; 95% CI 0·45–0·72). Including the results from RECOVERY in an updated meta-analysis of all nine completed trials (involving 11 888 randomly assigned patients and 1485 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or another JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·80; 95% CI 0·72–0·89; p<0·0001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no significant excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.</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
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
- …
