1,721,133 research outputs found
Efficacy and safety of piroxicam revisited. A global meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
No full textpeer reviewedBACKGROUND: The relative efficacy/safety profiles of traditional (non-selective) NSAIDs (t-NSAIDs) have been repeatedly challenged. To better understand the efficacy and safety profile of piroxicam, a widely used NSAID, a meta-analysis of comparative RCTs was carried out according to the QUOROM guidance. METHODS: A systematic comprehensive research (years 1980-2006) of any comparative randomised controlled trial (of over 7-day duration) with piroxicam for the treatment of osteoarticular conditions was conducted. Conservative analyses were stratified by comparator, outcome, indication, duration, and doses. Publication bias and robustness were exhaustively investigated. RESULTS: Seventy-five comparative trials were ultimately included for analyses. Regarding global efficacy, piroxicam was more effective than naproxen [OR=1.37 (1.05; 1.77)] and nabumetone [OR=1.72 (1.26; 2.34)], while equivalent to other NSAIDS [OR=1.06 (0.96; 1.18)]. For pain and articular swelling, piroxicam was statistically equivalent to all other NSAIDs. For mobility, piroxicam appeared to be more effective than indomethacin, while equivalent to all other NSAIDs. Piroxicam was globally safer than other NSAIDs OR=0.84 [0.73; 0.96], notably indomethacin [OR=0.53 (0.43; 0.64], naproxen [OR=0.75 (0.65; 0.85)] and salicylates [OR=0.36 (0.17; 0.75)]. From a global GI safety point of view, piroxicam was better tolerated than indomethacin [OR=0.46 (0.36; 0.58)], naproxen [OR=0.66 (0.53; 0.83)] and salicylates [OR=0.45 (0.27; 0.78)] while less tolerated when compared to meloxicam [OR=1.49 (1.05; 2.13)]. Major GI effects were comparable among piroxicam users as in comparator drugs users [OR=1.33 (0.96; 1.84)], except for meloxicam [OR=2.37 (1.13; 4.97)]. The skin safety of piroxicam was statistically comparable to those of comparators [OR=1.01 (0.68; 1.51)]. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of RCTs support a similar to more favourable efficacy/safety profile of piroxicam as compared to other t-NSAIDs
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
Managing the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
No full textConventional medical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis includes the use of NSAIDs (traditional and selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase [COX]-2), because they provide unmistakable and significant health benefits in the treatment of pain and inflammation. However, they are associated with an increased risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Both beneficial and adverse effects are due to the same mechanism of action, which is inhibition of COX-dependent prostanoids. Since CV and GI risk are related to drug exposure, a reduction in the administered dose is recommended. However, this strategy will not eliminate the hazard owing to a possible contribution of individual genetic background. Further studies will be necessary to develop genetic and/or biochemical markers predictive of the CV and GI risk of NSAIDs
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
- …
