1,720,964 research outputs found
Comparison between gravity cavernometry and traditional cavernometry of the pharmacological infusion [CONFRONTO FRA CAVERNOMETRIA PER GRAVITA E CAVERNOMETRIA CON CAVERNOPOMPA]
No full textA group of twenty-seven patients with impotence have been studied with gravity cavernometry and with traditional cavernometry of the pharmacological infusion. Aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome of these two techniques. Gravity cavernometry seems to be a useful and cost-effective tool to evaluate venous erectile dysfunctions
Valutazione critica dei risultati dell'intervento di legatura delle vene dorsali del pene nei pazienti com impotenza da fuga venosa.
No full text
Non-surgical therapy in induratio penis plastica: 10 years of experience [TERAPIA NON CHIRURGICA DELLA INDURATIO PENIS PLASTICA: DIECI ANNI DI ESPERIENZA]
No full textPersonal experience is described of 680 patients with induratio penis plastica (IPP) treated from 1980 to 1990. Patients were divided into three groups based on: a) age at onset of the disease, b) number and features of the plaques; c) erectile dysfunction. Therapy consisted in: a) association of anti-inflammatory drugs plus Vit. E; b) Laser therapy, ionophoresis, iontophoresis; c) infiltrative therapy (fibrinolytic, antinflammatory drugs and cortisone); d) a combination of a, b and c
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
- …
