1,720,990 research outputs found
The European Medicines Agency and the Authorization for Hydroxyethyl starch Containing Solutions–Killing the Cow to Get Rid of Ticks?
No full textThe European Medicines Agency (EMA) has advised taking HES off the market.There are numerous questions arising from this decision:First, and most importantly, do you agree?Then: Since 2013, we have already several limitations of HES (in duration, dose and indications), which have been - albeit still questionable-generally accepted. Currently, HES is indicated for surgical and trauma patients with hypovolaemia caused by acute blood loss when crystalloids alone are not considered sufficient. If the "ban" is accepted, (how) can we replace HES in these patients? Gelatins (Less effective), or albumin (money!!!), or can we assume/hope that there is no case where crystalloids are not sufficient? Indeed, don't we need any colloid anymore?The arguments of EMA are another topic to discuss: a) doctors ignore contraindications, b) it is too difficult to distinguish between patients who might profit or be harmed from HES; c) further measures would be ineffective. Do you agree these arguments? The authority banning from utilizing a drug because of ignoring contraindications, is this not a limiting behavior one considers fit for immature? Furthermore: If you start with "doctors ignore contraindications", can it be possible we can ban any existing drug? (Or where is the breaking point?)HES's scientific history is shameful. Can it be possible, that maybe-just maybe-this fact has affected the recommendation of EMA? (A turkish quote says (liberally translated): "Do not forsake the church, even if you are angry with the priest"). As a matter of fact, we need to be more suspicious about the studies comparing different types of fluids, no matter if the results are "pro" or "con" the use of HES. How do you comment different studies
PEEP in thoracic anesthesia: PROS and CONS
No full textProtective ventilation includes a strategy with low tidal volume, Plateau pressure, driving pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and recruitment maneuvers on the ventilated lung. The rationale for the application of PEEP during one-lung ventilation (OLV) is that PEEP may contribute to minimize atelectrauma, preventing airway closure and alveolar collapse and improving the ventilation/perfusion to the ventilated lung. However, in case of high partial pressure of oxygen the application of PEEP may cause increased pulmonary vascular resistance, thus diverting blood flow to the non-ventilated lung, and worsening ventilation/perfusion. Further, PEEP may be associated with higher risk of hemodynamic impairment, increased need for fluids and vasoactive drugs. Positive effects on outcome have been reported by titrating PEEP according to driving pressure, targeted to obtain the optimum respiratory as well as pulmonary system compliance. This may vary according to the method employed for titration and should be performed individually for each patient. In summary, the potential for harm combined with the lack of evidence for improved outcome suggest that PEEP must be judiciously used during OLV even when titrated to a safe target, and only as much as necessary to maintain an appropriate gas exchange under low protective tidal volumes and driving pressures
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
- …
