1,721,378 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
Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial
No full textBackground: many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods: this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings: between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79).Interpretation: in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.</p
Higher dose corticosteroids in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 who are hypoxic but not requiring ventilatory support (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial
No full textBackground: low-dose corticosteroids have been shown to reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen or ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). We evaluated the use of a higher dose of corticosteroids in this patient group.Methods: this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients with clinical evidence of hypoxia (ie, receiving oxygen or with oxygen saturation <92% on room air) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg dexamethasone once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which included dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality among all randomised participants. On May 11, 2022, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping recruitment of patients receiving no oxygen or simple oxygen only due to safety concerns. We report the results for these participants only. Recruitment of patients receiving ventilatory support is ongoing. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).Findings: between May 25, 2021, and May 13, 2022, 1272 patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia receiving no oxygen (eight [1%]) or simple oxygen only (1264 [99%]) were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids (659 patients) versus usual care alone (613 patients, of whom 87% received low-dose corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomly assigned, 745 (59%) were in Asia, 512 (40%) in the UK, and 15 (1%) in Africa. 248 (19%) had diabetes and 769 (60%) were male. Overall, 123 (19%) of 659 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 75 (12%) of 613 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·59 [95% CI 1·20-2·10]; p=0·0012). There was also an excess of pneumonia reported to be due to non-COVID infection (64 cases [10%] vs 37 cases [6%]; absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI 0·7-6·6]) and an increase in hyperglycaemia requiring increased insulin dose (142 [22%] vs 87 [14%]; absolute difference 7·4% [95% CI 3·2-11·5]).Interpretation: in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 with clinical hypoxia who required either no oxygen or simple oxygen only, higher dose corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of death compared with usual care, which included low-dose corticosteroids. The RECOVERY trial continues to assess the effects of higher dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health and Care Research, and Wellcome Trust.</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
- …
