186,686 research outputs found
Is the rate of revision of 36 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with Pinnacle acetabular components related to the year of the initial operation? An interrupted time-series analysis using data from the national joint registry for England and Wales
No full textAims The aim of this study was to determine whether the rates of revision for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Pinnacle components varied according to the year of the initial operation, and compare these with the rates of revision for other designs of MoM THA. Patients and Methods Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales included 36 mm MoM THAs with Pinnacle acetabular components which were undertaken between 2003 and 2012 with follow-up for at least five years (n = 10 776) and a control group of other MoM THAs (n = 13 817). The effect of the year of the primary operation on all-cause rates of revision was assessed using Cox regression and interrupted time-series analysis. Results For MoM THAs involving Pinnacle components, those undertaken between 2007 and 2012 had higher rates of revision compared with those undertaken between 2004 and 2006 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 2.57; p < 0.001). For THAs undertaken during and after 2007, the number of revisions per 1000 implant-years at risk significantly increased by 5.20 (95% CI 0.52 to 9.89; p = 0.033) compared with those undertaken before this time. In the control group, THAs undertaken between 2007 and 2012 also had higher rates of revision (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.49 to 2.10; p < 0.001), with revisions per 1000 implant-years for those undertaken during and after 2007 significantly increasing by 6.13 (95% CI 1.42 to 10.83; p = 0.016). Conclusion The five-year revision rates were significantly increased for all primary MoM THAs undertaken from 2007 onwards. Contrary to recent reports, this finding was not specific to those involving Pinnacle acetabular components and may be explained by increased surveillance and recent lowering of the threshold for revision.</p
sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024221076478 - Supplemental material for The clinical characteristics of familial cluster headache
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024221076478 for The clinical characteristics of familial cluster headache by Emer O’Connor, Elham Nikram, Lou Grangeon, Daisuke Danno, Henry Houlden and Manjit Matharu in Cephalalgia</p
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024231168089 - Supplemental material for New daily persistent headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024231168089 for New daily persistent headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Sanjay Cheema, Dwij Mehta, Jason Charles Ray, Elspeth J Hutton and Manjit Singh Matharu in Cephalalgia</p
sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024221076478 - Supplemental material for The clinical characteristics of familial cluster headache
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024221076478 for The clinical characteristics of familial cluster headache by Emer O’Connor, Elham Nikram, Lou Grangeon, Daisuke Danno, Henry Houlden and Manjit Matharu in Cephalalgia</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024231168089 - Supplemental material for New daily persistent headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024231168089 for New daily persistent headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Sanjay Cheema, Dwij Mehta, Jason Charles Ray, Elspeth J Hutton and Manjit Singh Matharu in Cephalalgia</p
Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-rep-10.1177_25158163221075569 - Epidemiology of diagnosed cluster headache in Norway
No full textSupplemental Material, sj-docx-1-rep-10.1177_25158163221075569 for Epidemiology of diagnosed cluster headache in Norway by Joan Crespi, Sasha Gulati, Øyvind Salvesen, Daniel Fossum Bratbak, David W Dodick, Manjit Singh Matharu and Erling Tronvik in Cephalalgia Reports</p
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
No full textWe 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
- …
