1,720,980 research outputs found
Systematic review of systemic sclerosis-specific instruments for the EULAR Outcome Measures Library: An evolutional database model of validated patient-reported outcomes
No full textObjectives The EULAR Outcome Measures Library (OML) is a freely available database of validated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of validated PROs specifically developed for systemic sclerosis (SSc) to feed the EULAR OML. Methods A sensitive search was developed in Medline and Embase to identify all validation studies, cohort studies, reviews, or meta-analyses in which the objective were the development or validation of specific PROs evaluating organ involvement, disease activity or damage in SSc. A reviewer screened title and abstracts, selected the studies, and collected data concerning validation using ad hoc forms based on the COSMIN checklist. Results From 13,140 articles captured, 74 met the predefined criteria. After excluding two instruments as they were unavailable in English the selected 23 studies provided information on seven SSc-specific PROs on different SSc domains: burden of illness (symptom burden index), functional status (Scleroderma Assessment Questionnaire), functional ability (scleroderma Functional Score), Raynaud's phenomenon (Raynaud's condition score), mouth involvement (Mouth Handicap in SSc), gastro-intestinal involvement (University of California Los Angeles-Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastro-Intestinal tract 2.0), and skin involvement (skin self-assessment). Each of them is partially validated and has different psychometric requirements. Conclusions Seven SSc-specific PROs have a minimum validation and were included in the EULAR OML. Further development in the area of disease-specific PROs in SSc is warranted
A systematic review of systemic sclerosis instruments for the eular outcome measures library : An evolutionary database of validated patient-reported instruments
Full text linkBackground: Over time, a patient-centered evaluation of health status has become more important for systemic sclerosis (SSc), both in research and clinical setting. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly used to measure various domains of disease status relevant to patients and physicians. The EULAR Outcome Measures Library (OML) is a freely available website with structured access to a growing database of validated PROs [1], but currently there are no PROs available on SSc at the EULAR OML.
Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review of validated SSc-specific PROs and to critically appraise their validity.
Methods: A sensitive search was developed in Medline and Embase (08/2015) to identify all validation studies, cohort studies, reviews or metaanalyses in which the objective were the development or validation of PROs evaluating organ involvement, disease activity or damage in SSc. A reviewer screened title and abstracts, selected the studies, and collected data concerning validation using ad hoc forms based on the COSMIN checklist.
Results: From 13,140 articles captured, 74 met the predefined criteria. After excluding an instrument for the unavailability of an English version, the selected studies provided information on 6 SSc-specific PROs: the Scleroderma Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ), the scleroderma functional score (FS), the Raynaud's condition score (RCS), the Mouth Handicap in SSc (MHISS), the University of California Los Angeles-Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastro-Intestinal tract (UCLA-SCTC-GIT 2.0), and the Skin Self-Assessment. The table summarizes the instruments and their measurement properties:
Table 1
SSc-specific PROs Domains No. of items and range Measurement properties
Reliability IC/TR/ME Validity Responsiveness Interpretability
SAQ Functional status (vascular, respiratory, GIT and musculoskeletal apparatus) Items: 23Range: 0–3 ICC 0.79–0.95 Total score higher in pts with systemic involvement Vascular z=0.92–2.97; Respiratory z=1.34–2.52; GIT z=−3.14–4.03; Musculoskeletal status z=0.68–3.16 –
FS Functional ability (upper limbs & muscle weakness) Items: 11Range: 0–33 Intra-observkw 0.19–0.6inter-observkw0.69–0.94 HAQ-DI r=0.90Skin score r=0.11 FS correlates with HAQ-DI 0.59, & Hand HAQ-DI 0.58 –
RCS Severity and impact of Raynaud's phenomenon Item: 1Range 0–10 ICC 0.70 Disease activity, Rp measures, digital ulcers, mood/tension 67% variance ES 0.6SRM 0.64 MID 14–15 points (0–100 VAS)PASS 34 points
MHISS Disability involving the mouth Items: 12Range: 0–48 ICC 0.96 HAQ r=0.33, CHFS r=0.37, mouth opening r=−0.34, MACTAR r=0.11, HADd r=0.26, HADa r=0.17 – –
UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 GIT symptoms severity Items: 34Range: 0–3 Cronbach's α>0.70, constipation (α=0.67)ICC 0.71 Total GIT score r=0.60; Upper GIT r=0.52; Lower GIT r=0.60 rho 0.05–0.48 MID/improvement: 0.07–0.36;MID/worsening: 0.06 −0.21;Floor: noneCeiling: 4%
Skin self-assessment Skin thickening Items: 17Range: 0–51 ICC 0.5–0.61 Skin score r=0.435 No changes 1 yr follow-up – dcSScFloor 15%Ceiling n.a.
Conclusions: Six SSc-specific PROs have a minimum validation and will be included in the EULAR OML. In general, the level of validation attained could be improved. Further development in the area of disease-specific PROs in SSc is warranted.
References:
Castrejón I, Gossec L, Carmona L. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(2):475–
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
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
