1,721,019 research outputs found
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
Rehabilitation and COVID-19: The Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. Update as of July 31st, 2020
No full textINTRODUCTION: This paper is the first update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review on the latest scientific literature informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing consequences of the disease and its treatment, as they relate to limitations in functioning of rehabilitation interest. The aim of this study was to report data of a systematic search performed on papers published in July 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review was applied to search eligible papers included in the databases between July 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight-hundred-ninety-two papers were identified through database searching (after removal of duplicates); of these, only 23 studies were included. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence Table, they were level 3 in 30.5% cases and level 4 in 69.5%. No RCT was found. Nineteen papers studied COVID-19 patients, assessed in the acute (10 studies), post-acute (8 studies) and chronic phase (one study). Four studies reported data on the impact of COVID-19 on subjects with pre-existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature production still focuses more on describing all the possible aspects and complications of the pathology than on interventions or new organization models to deal with it. Albeit evidence on handling COVID-19 from a rehabilitative point of view is improving each month, further studies are still mandatory to report the role of rehabilitation in this scenario
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
A systematic review opens the black box of “usual care” in stroke rehabilitation control groups and finds a black hole
Full text linkINTRODUCTION: In experimental trials, new methods are tested against the “best” or “usual” care. To appraise control group (CG) interventions provided as “usual care,” we focused on stroke as a leading cause of disability demanding rehabilitation as a complex intervention. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this methodological appraisal, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs without timespan limitation. The PICO included stroke survivors, rehabilitation, control group intervention, lower limb function. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB). we identified the terminology describing the CG Program (CGP), performed a knowledge synthesis and conducted a frequency analysis of provided interventions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: we included 155 publications. 13.6% of the articles did not describe the CG, and 11.6% indicated only the professionals involved. In the remaining 116 studies, three studies provided an intervention according to specific guidelines, 106 different “usual care” CGPs were detected, with nine proposed twice and two between four and five times. The most adopted terminology to state “usual care” was “conventional physiotherapy.” CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that usual care in CG does not actually exist, as both specific terminology and consistency within CGP contents are missing. Reporting guidelines should give better assistance on this issue. These results should be verified in other fields
Rehabilitation and COVID-19: Update of the rapid living systematic review by cochrane rehabilitation field as of April 30, 2021
No full textReliability and Validity of Hand-Held Dynamometer and Hand-Held Sphygmomanometer for Testing Shoulder Isometric External and Internal Rotator Muscles Strength
No full textBackground: Shoulder strength evaluation is a recommended procedure in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Aim: To examine hand-held sphygmomanometer (HHS) and hand-held dynamometer (HHD) intra- and inter-rater reliability during isometric shoulder external and internal rotation strength testing in prone rotation position in asymptomatic participants, and to compare these two testing modalities. Design: Reliability study. Methods: A total of 20 asymptomatic participants (27.7 ± 7.4 years; 77.1 ± 10.1 kg) attended a strength assessment consisting of HHS and HHD tests. Reliability was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), coefficient of variation (CV) with 95%CI, and standard error of measurement (SEM). Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis were used to compare HHS and HHD testing modalities. Results: “Good” to “excellent” intra (ICC range = 0.896 to 0.979) and inter-rater reliability scores (ICC range = 0.850 to 0.978) were displayed during both HHS and HHD tests during internal and external rotation strength assessments. Linear relationships between HHS and HHD measures were found, with coefficients of determination (R 2) ranging between 0.60 and 0.79. Conclusion: HHS and HHD resulted to be reliable strength assessment modalities for clinical practice. These assessment modes can be equally valid in assessing intra and inter-limb asymmetries in isometric shoulder rotation strength. The affordability and availability of HHS in ordinary clinical settings can facilitate its implementation in musculoskeletal practice
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
Rehabilitation and COVID-19: update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field as of October 31st, 2021
No full textDispelling 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
- …
