1,721,091 research outputs found
First International Meeting on EBM in Musculoskeletal Disorders (e_Musk1) Ferrara, Italy, April 2001
No full text--
A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
No full text
Mal di Schiena: Banca dati comparativa tra Linee guida e analisi critica delle raccomandazioni
No full textIl mal di schiena (Low-Back Pain, LBP) ha rice- vuto crescente attenzione, divenendo una delle principali cause di morbosità, assenza dal lavoro e spesa sanita- ria. Data la rilevanza clinica, epidemiologica ed economica del problema, numerose linee guida (LG) sono state ela- borate a livello internazionale negli ultimi anni, allo scopo di sistematizzare e razionalizzare l’approccio diagnosti- co e terapeutico al problema. Per questo motivo, nell’ambito della convenzione SIOT- ISS, si è scelto di produrre un documento di sintesi rapida della letteratura sul mal di schiena sul modello delle Ban- che Dati Comparative (Box 1: Banca dati comparativa di LG), che costituirà la base di partenza per i futuri docu- menti SNLG sull’argomento
CULTURAL ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION OF THE ITALIAN VERSION OF DAWSON’S QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KNEE REPLACEMENT
No full text--
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
- …
