1,721,004 research outputs found
Do characteristics of low back pain patients who improve while undergoing chiropractic care differ between NHS and private patients
No full textClinical outcomes in a large cohort of musculoskeletal patients undergoing chiropractic care in the United Kingdom: a comparison of self and NHS referral routes
No full textOBJECTIVE:An innovative commissioning pathway has recently been introduced in the United Kingdom allowing chiropractic organizations to provide state-funded chiropractic care to patients through referral from National Health Service (NHS) primary care physicians. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of NHS and private patient groups presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to chiropractors under the Any Qualified Provider scheme and compare the clinical outcomes of these patients with those presenting privately.METHODS:A prospective cohort design monitoring patient outcomes comparing self-referring and NHS-referred patients undergoing chiropractic care was used. The primary outcome was the change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores. Within- and between-group analyses were performed to explore differences between outcomes with additional analysis of subgroups as categorized by the STarT back tool.RESULTS:A total of 8222 patients filled in baseline questionnaires. Of these, NHS patients (41%) had more adverse health measures at baseline and went on to receive more treatment. Using percent change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores categorized at minimal clinical change cutoffs and adjusting for baseline differences, patients with low back and neck pain presenting privately are more likely to report improvement within 2 weeks and to have slightly better outcomes at 90 days. However, these patients were more likely to be attending consultations beyond 30 days.CONCLUSIONS:This study supports the contention that chiropractic services as provided in United Kingdom are appropriate for both private and NHS-referred patient groups and should be considered when general medical physicians make decisions concerning referral routes and pain pathways for patients with musculoskeletal conditions
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
Using the STarT Back Tool: does timing of stratification matter?
No full textIt is likely that individuals with nonspecific LBP (nsLBP) constitute a heterogenic group and targeting treatment appropriately to those most likely to respond is of major relevance. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) has been developed to stratify patients into risk groups to aid management choices. However, there is controversy over its generalisability and uncertainty as to the timing of use. This study investigated whether SBT categorisation early in a course of treatment would prove more prognostic than categorising patients at baseline. Seven hundred and forty nine patients over the age of 16 were recruited at 11 chiropractic clinics within the UK. The SBT was used to categorise these patients at presentation and 2 days following initial treatment with patient characteristics and condition specific markers also collected at baseline. The primary outcome was the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) collected at 14, 30 and 90 days following the initial visit. In this population undergoing chiropractic care, patients had similar outcomes irrespective of their STarT back risk ranking. Multivariate prognostic models included only the post initial visit SBT as an independent predictor of favourable outcome for the medium risk group but only at 30 days. Follow up improvement was dominated by previous improvement in 30 and 90-day models. Over one third of patients swapped SBT risk groups in the 2 day period between initial stratification and post initial visit although there was little difference in eventual improvement at follow-up. Understanding the impact of timing of SBT stratification is indicated
Prognostic accuracy of clinicians for back, neck and shoulder patients in routine practice
Full text linkBackground: chronicity amongst musculoskeletal patients remains a considerable burden and predicting outcomes in these patients has proven difficult. Although a large number of studies have investigated a range of predictors of outcome few have looked at the practitioners’ ability to discern those that improve from those most likely to fail to improve. This study aimed to investigate the ability of chiropractors to predict patient outcomes.Methods: prediction and outcome data were collected from 440 consecutive patients with back, neck or shoulder pain accepted for chiropractic care within 5 linked private practices.Predictions by chiropractors were compared to patient outcomes as measured by Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) scores, pain NRS scores and patient global impression of change (PGIC) collected at 4 and 12 weeks following the initial consultation.Results: overall, chiropractors appear unable to accurately predict poor outcomes in their patients particularly in the longer term. Although some conditions (neck) faired a little better in some cases with some trends in short term pain scores being associated with the clinicians prediction, this was marginal. Subgrouping by practitioners or duration did not improve the performance of these predictionsConclusions: chiropractors generally fail to reliably predict poor treatment outcome of patients at initial consultation
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
- …
