1,721,018 research outputs found

    Diagnostic markers of chronic hepatitis B infection and disease”

    No full text
    Recent advances in therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection offer the potential for a more successful treatment outcome, but also raise a number of questions in clinical practice regarding diagnosis and staging of CHB to ensure such potential is realized. In patients without cirrhosis, some forms of antiviral therapy can switch patients from an active disease phase into an inactive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carrier state, and eventually lead to HBsAg clearance and HBsAg antibody seroconversion, the closest to a cure in CHB; thus, one of the most important diagnostic questions that clinicians face is the identification of patients with early forms of CHB within a large cohort of asymptomatic HBsAg-positive individuals, most of whom are inactive HBsAg carriers. Two major categories of diagnostic markers are currently available: virus-specific markers and liver disease markers. Most markers involve the use of non-invasive serological testing, but invasive diagnostic procedures, such as liver biopsy, are also an option. In this article, we review current opinions on the appropriate use of diagnostic procedures, answering some important questions for the clinician, such as why, how, when and in whom they might best be used

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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
    corecore