1,720,977 research outputs found
Management of asthma in childhood: study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
No full textIntroduction Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted. Methods and analysis Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank. PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624
Research priorities in pediatric asthma: Results of a global survey of multiple stakeholder groups by the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
No full textBackground: Pediatric asthma remains a public health challenge with enormous impact worldwide. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs in pediatric asthma, that could be used to guide future research and policy activities. Methods: We first identified unmet needs through an open-question survey administered to international experts in pediatric asthma who were members of the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank. Prioritization of topics was then achieved through a second, extensive survey with global reach, of multiple stakeholders (leading experts, researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers and the pharmaceutical industry). Differences across responder groups were compared. Results: 57 unmet clinical need topics identified by international experts were prioritized by 412 participants from 5 continents and 60 countries. Prevention of disease progression and prediction of future risk, including persistence into adulthood, emerged as the most urgent research questions. Stratified care, based on biomarkers, were also highly rated. The identification of minimum diagnostic criteria in different age groups, cultural perceptions of asthma and best treatment by age group were priorities for responders from low-middle-income countries. There was good agreement across different stakeholder groups in all domains with some notable exceptions which highlight the importance of involving the whole range of stakeholders in formulation of recommendations. Conclusion: Different stakeholders agree in the majority of research and strategic (e.g. prevention, personalized approach) priorities for pediatric asthma. Stakeholder diversity is crucial for highlighting divergent issues that future guidelines should consider
Research priorities in pediatric asthma: Results of a global survey of multiple stakeholder groups by the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
No full textBackground: Pediatric asthma remains a public health challenge with enormous impact worldwide. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs in pediatric asthma, that could be used to guide future research and policy activities. Methods: We first identified unmet needs through an open-question survey administered to international experts in pediatric asthma who were members of the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank. Prioritization of topics was then achieved through a second, extensive survey with global reach, of multiple stakeholders (leading experts, researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers and the pharmaceutical industry). Differences across responder groups were compared. Results: 57 unmet clinical need topics identified by international experts were prioritized by 412 participants from 5 continents and 60 countries. Prevention of disease progression and prediction of future risk, including persistence into adulthood, emerged as the most urgent research questions. Stratified care, based on biomarkers, were also highly rated. The identification of minimum diagnostic criteria in different age groups, cultural perceptions of asthma and best treatment by age group were priorities for responders from low-middle-income countries. There was good agreement across different stakeholder groups in all domains with some notable exceptions which highlight the importance of involving the whole range of stakeholders in formulation of recommendations. Conclusion: Different stakeholders agree in the majority of research and strategic (e.g. prevention, personalized approach) priorities for pediatric asthma. Stakeholder diversity is crucial for highlighting divergent issues that future guidelines should consider
Management of asthma in childhood:study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
Full text linkINTRODUCTION: Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively.Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624.</p
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
Management of Asthma in Childhood: Study Protocol of a Systematic Evidence Update by the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
No full textIntroduction. Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The PeARL Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews on pediatric asthma maintenance management and a systematic review of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted.Methods and analysis. Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials, or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use AMSTAR-2, Cochrane RoB2 and RELEVANT to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta- analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and GRADE methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence
Management of asthma in childhood: study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
Full text linkIntroductionClinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted.Methods and analysisStandard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank.PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624.</p
Management of Asthma in Childhood: Study Protocol of a Systematic Evidence Update by the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank
No full textIntroduction. Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The PeARL Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews on pediatric asthma maintenance management and a systematic review of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted.Methods and analysis. Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials, or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use AMSTAR-2, Cochrane RoB2 and RELEVANT to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta- analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and GRADE methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence
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
- …
