1,721,045 research outputs found
Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection
Full text linkBACKGROUND: Hair has traditionally been removed from the surgical site before surgery; however, some studies claim that this increases surgical site infections (SSIs) and should be avoided. This is the second update of a review published in 2006 and first updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether routine preoperative hair removal (compared with no removal) and the method, timing, or setting of hair removal effect SSI rates. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, for this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies plus reviews to identify additional studies. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials or quasi‐randomised trials that compared: · hair removal with no hair removal;
· different methods of hair removal; and
· hair removal at different times before surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the relevance of each study. Data were extracted independently by both review authors and cross‐checked. We carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at high risk of bias were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new studies in this update resulting in a total of 19 randomised and 6 quasi‐randomised trials (8919 participants). Clipping compared with no hair removal Low certainty evidence suggests there may be little difference in risk of SSI when no hair removal is compared with hair removal using clippers (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.39; three studies with 1733 participants). Shaving with a razor compared with no hair removal Moderate certainty evidence suggests the risk of SSI is probably increased in participants who have hair removal with a razor compared with no removal (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.14; seven studies with 1706 participants). In terms of absolute risk this represents 17 more SSIs per 1000 in the razor group compared with the no hair removal group (95% CI 1 more to 45 more SSI in the razor group). Based on low‐certainty evidence, it is unclear whether there is a difference in stitch abscesses between hair removal with a razor and no hair removal (1 trial with 80 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.66). Based on narrative data from one trial with 136 participants, there may be little difference in length of hospital stay between participants having hair removed with a razor compared with those having no hair removal (low‐certainty evidence). Based on narrative data from one trial with 278 participants, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in cost between participants having hair removed by shaving with a razor compared with no hair removal (very low certainty evidence). Depilatory cream compared with no hair removal Low certainty evidence suggests there may be little difference in SSI risk between depilatory cream or no hair removal, although there are were wide confidence intervals around the point estimate that included benefit and harm (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.31; low‐certainty evidence; 1 trial with 267 participants). Based on narrative data from one trial with 267 participants, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in cost between participants having hair removed with depilatory cream compared with no hair removal (very low certainty evidence). Shaving with a razor compared with clipping Moderate‐certainty evidence from 7 studies with 3723 participants suggests the risk of SSI is probably increased by shaving with a razor compared with clipping (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.33). Moderate‐certainty evidence suggests the risk of skin injury is probably increased in people who have hair removal with a razor rather than clipping (3 trials with 1333 participants; RR 1.74, CI 95% 1.12 to 2.71). Shaving with a razor compared with depilatory cream Moderate‐certainty evidence from 9 studies with 1593 participants suggests there is probably more SSI risk when razors are used compared with depilatory cream (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.65). Low‐certainty evidence suggests the risk of skin injury may be increased when using a razor rather than depilatory cream for hair removal (RR 6.95, CI 95% 3.45 to 13.98; 5 trials with 937 participants). Based on narrative data from three trials with 402 participants, it is uncertain whether depilatory cream is more expensive than shaving (very low certainty evidence). Hair removal on the day of surgery compared with one‐day preoperatively Low‐certainty evidence suggests that there may be a small reduction in SSI risk when hair is removed on the day of surgery compared with the day before surgery although there are were wide confidence intervals around the point estimate that included benefit and harm (one trial, 977 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no hair removal, there may be little difference in risk of SSI when clippers or depilatory cream are used (low‐certainty evidence). However, there are probably fewer SSIs when hair is not removed compared with shaving with a razor (moderate‐certainty evidence). If hair has to be removed, moderate‐certainty evidence suggests using clippers or depilatory cream probably results in fewer SSIs and other complications compared with shaving using a razor. There may be a small reduction in SSIs when hair is removed on the day of, rather than the day before, surgery
Remote digital surgical wound monitoring and surveillance using smartphones
Full text linkThis international consensus document presents evidence-based best-practice recommendations for remote monitoring of surgical wounds.The document’s recommendations have been developed from the outcomes of an expert panel meeting held in London on 3 May 2024. The in-depth discussion and resulting document aimed to:•Identify key issues surrounding remote monitoring of surgical wounds•Review the evidence supporting these key issues•Make best-practice recommendations based upon this evidence•Identify gaps in the evidence as areas for future research.To ensure that these objectives were met, the document was reviewed and approved by the author panel, as well as a panel of expert peer reviewers and representatives from the sponsors. Where possible, the consensus recommendations are evidenced with citations to published literature. Expert-opinion and advice proposed by the panel, for which there is not strong supporting evidence but applied research and clinical judgement, is presented as a ‘consensus statement’.The consensus document is aimed at a multidisciplinary readership, including physicians, nurses and allied health professionals, whether or not they specialise in surveillance or infection prevention and control, or if they work in acute-, primary- or home-care settings. Its recommendations should apply to all surgical disciplines. Its scope is global, including both high-income and low-to-middle-income health systems, as well as those serving marginalised populations
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
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
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe 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
Full text linkWe 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
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
