1,721,005 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“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
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe 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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe 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
Causes of elevated troponin in patients with normal coronary angiography
Get PDFTroponin rise indicates myocardial cell injury. However, elevated values of troponin are not always consequence of infarction or ischemia.
In this paper, aim was to elucidate diverse etiologies of elevated troponin in patients with normal coronary angiography.
At KBC Zagreb in 2014 there was 976 patients identified from catheterization database who underwent coronary angiography due to suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We identified 30 (3.1%) patients who had alternative cause for myocyte injury other than coronary artery disease (CAD), meaning that there was less than 30 % coronary arterial luminal stenosis.
The elevation of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) in patients with normal coronary angiography was attributed to diverse etiologies, including hypertensive crisis, Takotsubo syndrome, severe aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation (AF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, advanced heart failure, hypertensive cardiomyopathy, acute pulmonary embolism, malignant disease progression, and cardiogenic shock.
Apart from ACS, cTnT could be elevated in a number of different conditions, which should be considered according to clinical presentation, different diagnostic procedure, and still could reflect myonecrosis, even in the absence of significant angiographic CAD
Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome
No full textUnatoč razvoju suvremenih metoda PCI-a i kvalitetnijeg liječenja bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom, u svakodnevnoj praksi se i dalje susrećemo s problemom ISR i potrebom reintervencija u tih bolesnika.
Cilj ovog ispitivanja bio je utvrditi sigurnost i učinkovitost primjene DEB-a u kombinaciji s BMS-om u PCI-a kod bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije, prvenstveno u pogledu redukcije LLL-a, te smanjenja incidencije binarne ISR.
Ovo je bilo prospektivno randomiziran ispitivanje koje je uključilo bolesnike hospitalizirane zbog NSTEMI-ja ili nestabilne angine pektoris. Bolesnici su bili podvrgnuti koronarografiji unutar 24-48 sati od primitka, te su bili randomizirani u dvije skupine: BMS skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om i BMS+DEB skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om uz postdilataciju s paklitaksel DEB-om. Angiografska kontrola je bila nakon šest mjeseci zbog najveće incidencije restenoze u tom vremenskom periodu. Primarni ispitivani ishodi bili su binarna ISR i LLL, a sekundarni ispitivani ishodi bili su TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom nakon šest mjeseci.
U ispitivanje je bilo uključeno ukupno 85 ispitanika, 44 u BMS skupini i 41 u BMS+DEB skupini. Medijan životne dobi iznosio je 68 (36-84) godina a 68 (80%) ispitanika je bilo muškog spola. Pedeset i dva (61,2%) bolesnika su imala NSTEMI, a 33 (38,8%) bolesnika nestabilnu anginu pektoris. Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u demografskim karakteristikama, rizičnim čimbenicima i kliničkim karakteristikama između ispitivanih skupina (dob, spol, BMI, NSTEMI ili nestabilna angina pektoris, GRACE zbroj bodova, EF, šećerna bolest, hipertenzija, hiperlipidemija, kronično bubrežno zatajenje) osim većeg broja aktualnih pušača u BMS+DEB skupini 18/41 (43,9%) naspram 9/44 (20,5%); p=0,033. U većine bolesnika učinjena je kontrolna koronarografija nakon šest mjeseci, osim u 3/44 (6,8%) bolesnika iz BMS skupine i 2/41 (4,8%) bolesnika iz BMS+DEB skupine koji su ranije podvrgnuti koronarografiji zbog novog akutnog koronarnog sindroma.
Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u binarnoj ISR nakon šest mjeseci između ispitivanih skupina, p=0,593, međutim LLL je bio statistički značajno niži u BMS+DEB skupini 0,22 (0,00-2,35) mm naspram 0,68 (0,00-2,25) mm; p=0,002. Također nije bilo razlike u velikim neželjenim kardijalnim događajima koji obuhvaćaju TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom između ispitivanih skupina, 29,5% (BMS) naspram 24,4% (BMS+DEB); p=0,835. Jedan je bolesnik iz BMS+DEB skupine imao subakutnu ST zbog rezistencije na klopidogrel koja je dokazana agregometrijom.
U zaključku, upotreba kombinacije BMS-a i DEB-a u bolesnika sa akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije je sigurna u smislu akutne ili subakutne ST. U bolesnika s BMS+DEB zabilježena je statistički značajna redukcija LLL-a u odnosu na bolesnike s izoliranom primjenom BMS-a, no bez utjecaja na klinički ishod bolesnika. BMS +DEB nije bio superiorniji u odnosu na izoliranu primjenu BMS-a u redukciji binarne ISR i MACE (TLR, ST, novi akutni koronarni sindrom). Potrebna su ispitivanja s većim brojem ispitanika kako bi se utvrdila potencijalna dobrobit od kombinacije BMS+DEB u tih bolesnika. S obzirom na dobre rezultate „DEB only“ u bolesnika sa stabilnom koronarnom bolešću, taj koncept može predstavljati alternativu u bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom.Despite the development of PCI techniques and better quality in treating patients with acute coronary syndromes, we have to deal with the problem of restenosis and reinterventions in those patients in our daily practice.
The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of DEB in combination with BMS in PCI of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome primarily in reducing the incidence of LLL and binary ISR.
This was a prospective randomized study which included patients who were hospitalized because of NSTEMI or UA. Coronary angiography was performed in the first 24-48 hours and the patients were randomized into two groups: BMS only group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS and BMS+DEB group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS followed by postdilatation with paclitaxel DEB. Angiographic follow- up was performed after 6 months because of the highest incidence of restenosis in this time period. The primary endpoints were binary ISR and LLL and the secondary endpoints were TLR, ST and new ACS at 6 months.
A total of 85 patients were enrolled in the study, 44 in the BMS group and 41 in the BMS+DEB group. The median age was 67 (36-84) years and there were 68 males (80%). Fifty two patients (61.2%) had NSTEMI and 33 patients (38.8%) UA. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics, risk factors and clinical characteristics between the two groups except for the fact that there were more smokers in the BMS+DEB group 18/41 (43.9%) vs. 9/44 (20.5%), p=0.033. Follow-up angiography was performed in all patients after 6 months, except in 3/44 (6.8%) patients in the BMS group and in 2/41 (4.8%) in the BMS+DEB group, in which angiography was performed earlier because of a new ASC. There was no statistical significant difference in binary ISR after 6 months between the two groups; p=0.593, but LLL was significant lower in the BMS+DEB group 0.22 (0.00-2.35) mm vs. 0.68 (0.00-2.25) mm; p= 0.002. The difference in MACE rate combining TLR, ST and ACS, between the groups was also nonsignificant, 29.5% (BMS) vs 24.4% (BMS+DEB); p= 0.835. One patient had subacute ST (BMS+DEB) due to clopidogrel resistance proofed by aggregometry.
In conclusion, the use of BMS+DEB in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes seems to be safe in terms of acute or subacute stent thrombosis. There was significant less LLL in BMS+DEB in comparison to BMS alone but without an impact in patient clinical outcomes. BMS+DEB was not superior to BMS in reduction of binary ISR and MACE (TLR, ST, ACS). More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of BMS+DEB in those patients. The “DEB only” concept can also be an alternative considering the good results in patients with stable coronary artery disease
Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome
No full textUnatoč razvoju suvremenih metoda PCI-a i kvalitetnijeg liječenja bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom, u svakodnevnoj praksi se i dalje susrećemo s problemom ISR i potrebom reintervencija u tih bolesnika.
Cilj ovog ispitivanja bio je utvrditi sigurnost i učinkovitost primjene DEB-a u kombinaciji s BMS-om u PCI-a kod bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije, prvenstveno u pogledu redukcije LLL-a, te smanjenja incidencije binarne ISR.
Ovo je bilo prospektivno randomiziran ispitivanje koje je uključilo bolesnike hospitalizirane zbog NSTEMI-ja ili nestabilne angine pektoris. Bolesnici su bili podvrgnuti koronarografiji unutar 24-48 sati od primitka, te su bili randomizirani u dvije skupine: BMS skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om i BMS+DEB skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om uz postdilataciju s paklitaksel DEB-om. Angiografska kontrola je bila nakon šest mjeseci zbog najveće incidencije restenoze u tom vremenskom periodu. Primarni ispitivani ishodi bili su binarna ISR i LLL, a sekundarni ispitivani ishodi bili su TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom nakon šest mjeseci.
U ispitivanje je bilo uključeno ukupno 85 ispitanika, 44 u BMS skupini i 41 u BMS+DEB skupini. Medijan životne dobi iznosio je 68 (36-84) godina a 68 (80%) ispitanika je bilo muškog spola. Pedeset i dva (61,2%) bolesnika su imala NSTEMI, a 33 (38,8%) bolesnika nestabilnu anginu pektoris. Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u demografskim karakteristikama, rizičnim čimbenicima i kliničkim karakteristikama između ispitivanih skupina (dob, spol, BMI, NSTEMI ili nestabilna angina pektoris, GRACE zbroj bodova, EF, šećerna bolest, hipertenzija, hiperlipidemija, kronično bubrežno zatajenje) osim većeg broja aktualnih pušača u BMS+DEB skupini 18/41 (43,9%) naspram 9/44 (20,5%); p=0,033. U većine bolesnika učinjena je kontrolna koronarografija nakon šest mjeseci, osim u 3/44 (6,8%) bolesnika iz BMS skupine i 2/41 (4,8%) bolesnika iz BMS+DEB skupine koji su ranije podvrgnuti koronarografiji zbog novog akutnog koronarnog sindroma.
Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u binarnoj ISR nakon šest mjeseci između ispitivanih skupina, p=0,593, međutim LLL je bio statistički značajno niži u BMS+DEB skupini 0,22 (0,00-2,35) mm naspram 0,68 (0,00-2,25) mm; p=0,002. Također nije bilo razlike u velikim neželjenim kardijalnim događajima koji obuhvaćaju TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom između ispitivanih skupina, 29,5% (BMS) naspram 24,4% (BMS+DEB); p=0,835. Jedan je bolesnik iz BMS+DEB skupine imao subakutnu ST zbog rezistencije na klopidogrel koja je dokazana agregometrijom.
U zaključku, upotreba kombinacije BMS-a i DEB-a u bolesnika sa akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije je sigurna u smislu akutne ili subakutne ST. U bolesnika s BMS+DEB zabilježena je statistički značajna redukcija LLL-a u odnosu na bolesnike s izoliranom primjenom BMS-a, no bez utjecaja na klinički ishod bolesnika. BMS +DEB nije bio superiorniji u odnosu na izoliranu primjenu BMS-a u redukciji binarne ISR i MACE (TLR, ST, novi akutni koronarni sindrom). Potrebna su ispitivanja s većim brojem ispitanika kako bi se utvrdila potencijalna dobrobit od kombinacije BMS+DEB u tih bolesnika. S obzirom na dobre rezultate „DEB only“ u bolesnika sa stabilnom koronarnom bolešću, taj koncept može predstavljati alternativu u bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom.Despite the development of PCI techniques and better quality in treating patients with acute coronary syndromes, we have to deal with the problem of restenosis and reinterventions in those patients in our daily practice.
The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of DEB in combination with BMS in PCI of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome primarily in reducing the incidence of LLL and binary ISR.
This was a prospective randomized study which included patients who were hospitalized because of NSTEMI or UA. Coronary angiography was performed in the first 24-48 hours and the patients were randomized into two groups: BMS only group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS and BMS+DEB group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS followed by postdilatation with paclitaxel DEB. Angiographic follow- up was performed after 6 months because of the highest incidence of restenosis in this time period. The primary endpoints were binary ISR and LLL and the secondary endpoints were TLR, ST and new ACS at 6 months.
A total of 85 patients were enrolled in the study, 44 in the BMS group and 41 in the BMS+DEB group. The median age was 67 (36-84) years and there were 68 males (80%). Fifty two patients (61.2%) had NSTEMI and 33 patients (38.8%) UA. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics, risk factors and clinical characteristics between the two groups except for the fact that there were more smokers in the BMS+DEB group 18/41 (43.9%) vs. 9/44 (20.5%), p=0.033. Follow-up angiography was performed in all patients after 6 months, except in 3/44 (6.8%) patients in the BMS group and in 2/41 (4.8%) in the BMS+DEB group, in which angiography was performed earlier because of a new ASC. There was no statistical significant difference in binary ISR after 6 months between the two groups; p=0.593, but LLL was significant lower in the BMS+DEB group 0.22 (0.00-2.35) mm vs. 0.68 (0.00-2.25) mm; p= 0.002. The difference in MACE rate combining TLR, ST and ACS, between the groups was also nonsignificant, 29.5% (BMS) vs 24.4% (BMS+DEB); p= 0.835. One patient had subacute ST (BMS+DEB) due to clopidogrel resistance proofed by aggregometry.
In conclusion, the use of BMS+DEB in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes seems to be safe in terms of acute or subacute stent thrombosis. There was significant less LLL in BMS+DEB in comparison to BMS alone but without an impact in patient clinical outcomes. BMS+DEB was not superior to BMS in reduction of binary ISR and MACE (TLR, ST, ACS). More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of BMS+DEB in those patients. The “DEB only” concept can also be an alternative considering the good results in patients with stable coronary artery disease
Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome
No full textUnatoč razvoju suvremenih metoda PCI-a i kvalitetnijeg liječenja bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom, u svakodnevnoj praksi se i dalje susrećemo s problemom ISR i potrebom reintervencija u tih bolesnika.
Cilj ovog ispitivanja bio je utvrditi sigurnost i učinkovitost primjene DEB-a u kombinaciji s BMS-om u PCI-a kod bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije, prvenstveno u pogledu redukcije LLL-a, te smanjenja incidencije binarne ISR.
Ovo je bilo prospektivno randomiziran ispitivanje koje je uključilo bolesnike hospitalizirane zbog NSTEMI-ja ili nestabilne angine pektoris. Bolesnici su bili podvrgnuti koronarografiji unutar 24-48 sati od primitka, te su bili randomizirani u dvije skupine: BMS skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om i BMS+DEB skupina – PCI ciljne lezije s BMS-om uz postdilataciju s paklitaksel DEB-om. Angiografska kontrola je bila nakon šest mjeseci zbog najveće incidencije restenoze u tom vremenskom periodu. Primarni ispitivani ishodi bili su binarna ISR i LLL, a sekundarni ispitivani ishodi bili su TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom nakon šest mjeseci.
U ispitivanje je bilo uključeno ukupno 85 ispitanika, 44 u BMS skupini i 41 u BMS+DEB skupini. Medijan životne dobi iznosio je 68 (36-84) godina a 68 (80%) ispitanika je bilo muškog spola. Pedeset i dva (61,2%) bolesnika su imala NSTEMI, a 33 (38,8%) bolesnika nestabilnu anginu pektoris. Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u demografskim karakteristikama, rizičnim čimbenicima i kliničkim karakteristikama između ispitivanih skupina (dob, spol, BMI, NSTEMI ili nestabilna angina pektoris, GRACE zbroj bodova, EF, šećerna bolest, hipertenzija, hiperlipidemija, kronično bubrežno zatajenje) osim većeg broja aktualnih pušača u BMS+DEB skupini 18/41 (43,9%) naspram 9/44 (20,5%); p=0,033. U većine bolesnika učinjena je kontrolna koronarografija nakon šest mjeseci, osim u 3/44 (6,8%) bolesnika iz BMS skupine i 2/41 (4,8%) bolesnika iz BMS+DEB skupine koji su ranije podvrgnuti koronarografiji zbog novog akutnog koronarnog sindroma.
Nije bilo statistički značajne razlike u binarnoj ISR nakon šest mjeseci između ispitivanih skupina, p=0,593, međutim LLL je bio statistički značajno niži u BMS+DEB skupini 0,22 (0,00-2,35) mm naspram 0,68 (0,00-2,25) mm; p=0,002. Također nije bilo razlike u velikim neželjenim kardijalnim događajima koji obuhvaćaju TLR, ST i novi akutni koronarni sindrom između ispitivanih skupina, 29,5% (BMS) naspram 24,4% (BMS+DEB); p=0,835. Jedan je bolesnik iz BMS+DEB skupine imao subakutnu ST zbog rezistencije na klopidogrel koja je dokazana agregometrijom.
U zaključku, upotreba kombinacije BMS-a i DEB-a u bolesnika sa akutnim koronarnim sindromom bez ST elevacije je sigurna u smislu akutne ili subakutne ST. U bolesnika s BMS+DEB zabilježena je statistički značajna redukcija LLL-a u odnosu na bolesnike s izoliranom primjenom BMS-a, no bez utjecaja na klinički ishod bolesnika. BMS +DEB nije bio superiorniji u odnosu na izoliranu primjenu BMS-a u redukciji binarne ISR i MACE (TLR, ST, novi akutni koronarni sindrom). Potrebna su ispitivanja s većim brojem ispitanika kako bi se utvrdila potencijalna dobrobit od kombinacije BMS+DEB u tih bolesnika. S obzirom na dobre rezultate „DEB only“ u bolesnika sa stabilnom koronarnom bolešću, taj koncept može predstavljati alternativu u bolesnika s akutnim koronarnim sindromom.Despite the development of PCI techniques and better quality in treating patients with acute coronary syndromes, we have to deal with the problem of restenosis and reinterventions in those patients in our daily practice.
The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of DEB in combination with BMS in PCI of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome primarily in reducing the incidence of LLL and binary ISR.
This was a prospective randomized study which included patients who were hospitalized because of NSTEMI or UA. Coronary angiography was performed in the first 24-48 hours and the patients were randomized into two groups: BMS only group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS and BMS+DEB group - PCI of the target lesion with BMS followed by postdilatation with paclitaxel DEB. Angiographic follow- up was performed after 6 months because of the highest incidence of restenosis in this time period. The primary endpoints were binary ISR and LLL and the secondary endpoints were TLR, ST and new ACS at 6 months.
A total of 85 patients were enrolled in the study, 44 in the BMS group and 41 in the BMS+DEB group. The median age was 67 (36-84) years and there were 68 males (80%). Fifty two patients (61.2%) had NSTEMI and 33 patients (38.8%) UA. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics, risk factors and clinical characteristics between the two groups except for the fact that there were more smokers in the BMS+DEB group 18/41 (43.9%) vs. 9/44 (20.5%), p=0.033. Follow-up angiography was performed in all patients after 6 months, except in 3/44 (6.8%) patients in the BMS group and in 2/41 (4.8%) in the BMS+DEB group, in which angiography was performed earlier because of a new ASC. There was no statistical significant difference in binary ISR after 6 months between the two groups; p=0.593, but LLL was significant lower in the BMS+DEB group 0.22 (0.00-2.35) mm vs. 0.68 (0.00-2.25) mm; p= 0.002. The difference in MACE rate combining TLR, ST and ACS, between the groups was also nonsignificant, 29.5% (BMS) vs 24.4% (BMS+DEB); p= 0.835. One patient had subacute ST (BMS+DEB) due to clopidogrel resistance proofed by aggregometry.
In conclusion, the use of BMS+DEB in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes seems to be safe in terms of acute or subacute stent thrombosis. There was significant less LLL in BMS+DEB in comparison to BMS alone but without an impact in patient clinical outcomes. BMS+DEB was not superior to BMS in reduction of binary ISR and MACE (TLR, ST, ACS). More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of BMS+DEB in those patients. The “DEB only” concept can also be an alternative considering the good results in patients with stable coronary artery disease
- …
