1,721,141 research outputs found
Doxycycline for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip
No full textBACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the
leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be
a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is
equivocal.
OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no
specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety
outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5
August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted
authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that
compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no
intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using
standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome
information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and
function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using
inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic
review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the
quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of
-0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores
between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial
heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95%
CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 =
54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event,
and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of
1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but
confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant.
No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse
events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by
the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe
on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although
effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in
adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip
osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised
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
Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee
No full textBACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a
leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a
benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting
results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective.
OBJECTIVES: To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or
non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety
outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August
2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they were randomised or
quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint
lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
We did not apply any language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors extracted data using
standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome
information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and
function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using
inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined
arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal
irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and
we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2)
= 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain
relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a
difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm
visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months
were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in
function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability
sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree
depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by
differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham
interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect.
Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were
unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for
patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of
function
S-Adenosylmethionine for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip
No full textBACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the
leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be
a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is
equivocal.
OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no
specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety
outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5
August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted
authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that
compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no
intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using
standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome
information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and
function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using
inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic
review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the
quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of
-0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores
between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial
heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95%
CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 =
54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event,
and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of
1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but
confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant.
No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse
events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by
the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe
on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although
effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in
adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip
osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised
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
- …
