323,283 research outputs found

    Trimebutine maleate as a multidimensional-antibacterial agent against functional dyspepsia: A prospective multicenter randomized, double-blind controlled trial

    No full text
    [No Abstract Available]Galenica A.E. Pharmaceutical Company, GreeceJ. Kountouras: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; This work has been financially supported by Galenica A.E. Pharmaceutical Company, Greece. E. Gavalas: None. A. Papaefthymiou: None. I. Tsechelidis: None. S. Polyzos: None. S. Bor: None. M. Diculescu: None. A. Bochenek: None. K. Jadallah: None. J. Rozciecha: None. T. Karakan: None. P. Dabrowski: None. M. Tadeusz: None. Z. Spirchez: None. O. Sezgin: None. M. Gulten: None. N. Farsakh: None. M. Doulberis: None

    Diffusive author(s), cohesive author: Analysis of S/N (1994)

    No full text
    This study indicates the ways in which various aspects of the author(s) are brought forth in Dumb type’s performance art, the S/N production. Previous research has suggested a non-hierarchical organization of Dumb type and the absence of a “privileged author” in Dumb type’s collaborative work, S/N. However, the results that I have investigated from member’s interviews on the creative process of S/N along with my analysis of the recorded images of S/N, indicate a different aspect of the author(s). First, S/N was created through, so to speak, the collective ideas of the members of Dumb type. Further, S/N has at least nine quotations from previous performances, installations, and printed writings, besides the work-in-progress technique. Explicating one of the “author functions” as given by Michel Foucault, each text has plural subjects of the author. However, it has been revealed from members’ interviews that Teiji Furuhashi had a decision-making role in selecting the members’ ideas within the performance. Since then, S/N has had plural subjects of creation; however, Furuhashi is one of the subjects of creation along with the “privileged author.” S/N has plural authors (diffusive authors) yet at the same time, it has a “privileged author,” Teiji Furuhashi (cohesive author)

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    No full text
    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

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    No full text
    We 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

    Live birth and perinatal outcomes following stimulated and unstimulated IVF: Analysis of over two decades of a nationwide data

    No full text
    STUDY QUESTION Does ovarian stimulation affect perinatal outcomes of preterm birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW) following IVF treatment. SUMMARY ANSWER Despite no significant differences in the risks of PTB and LBW between stimulated and unstimulated IVF in the present study, the study cannot exclude the effect of ovarian stimulation on the perinatal outcomes following IVF. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN Pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive treatments (ART) are associated with a higher risk of pregnancy complications compared to spontaneously conceived pregnancies attributed to the underlying infertility and the in vitro fertilization techniques. It is of interest to determine the effect size of ovarian stimulation use in achieving a live birth and whether ovarian stimulation that is routinely used in IVF, affects perinatal outcomes of birth weight and gestational age at delivery compared to unstimulated IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Anonymous data were obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the statutory regulator of ART in the UK. The HFEA has collected data prospectively on all ART performed in the UK since 1991. Data from 1991 to 2011 comprising a total of 591 003 fresh IVF ± ICSI cycles involving 584 835 stimulated IVF cycles and 6168 unstimulated IVF cycles were analyzed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Data on all women undergoing either stimulated or unstimulated fresh IVF ± ICSI cycles during the period from 1991 to 2011 were analyzed to compare live birth rates, singleton live birth rates, perinatal outcomes of PTB, early PTB (<32 weeks), LBW and very LBW (<1500 grams) among singleton live births. Adjusted logistic regression was performed for each perinatal outcome for confounding factors: female age, period of treatment, cause of infertility, number of previous IVF cycles and previous live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Analysis of the large nationwide data demonstrated 3.5 times (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.1-3.9) as many unstimulated IVF cycles being required to achieve one live birth compared to stimulated IVF and 2.9 times (95% CI: 2.6-3.2) as many unstimulated IVF cycles being required to achieve one singleton live birth compared to stimulated IVF. There was no significant difference in the unadjusted odds for PTB (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% CI: 0.80-2.00) and LBW (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 0.90-2.42) between stimulated and unstimulated IVF cycles. There was no significant difference in the risk of the adverse perinatal outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders; PTB (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.43, 95% CI: 0.91-2.26) and LBW (aOR 1.58, 95% CI: 0.96-2.58). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Although the analysis was adjusted for a number of important confounders, the dataset had no information on smoking, body mass index (BMI) and the medical history of women during pregnancy to allow adjustment. Anonymized nature of the dataset did not make it permissible to analyse one cycle per woman. Given the smaller number of perinatal events with unstimulated IVF, a larger study is needed to investigate further. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Analysis of this large dataset demonstrates that ovarian stimulation has a vital role in maximizing efficacy of IVF. Although there were no significant differences for PTB and LBW following stimulated compared to unstimulated IVF, the CIs were wide enough to include possible clinically important effects. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests to declare
    corecore