Survival Rate of Short-Stem Hip Prostheses: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Studies and National Arthroplasty Registers

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1800-1805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Hauer ◽  
Ines Vielgut ◽  
Florian Amerstorfer ◽  
Werner Maurer-Ertl ◽  
Andreas Leithner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Short Stem ◽  
Hip Prostheses

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of antibody- and lipid-based multiplexing methods for single-cell RNA-seq

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viacheslav Mylka ◽  
Jeroen Aerts ◽  
Irina Matetovici ◽  
Suresh Poovathingal ◽  
Niels Vandamme ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Variation ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Single Cell ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Rna Seq ◽  
Batch Effects ◽  
Single Cell Sequencing ◽  
Single Nucleus

ABSTRACTMultiplexing of samples in single-cell RNA-seq studies allows significant reduction of experimental costs, straightforward identification of doublets, increased cell throughput, and reduction of sample-specific batch effects. Recently published multiplexing techniques using oligo-conjugated antibodies or - lipids allow barcoding sample-specific cells, a process called ‘hashing’. Here, we compare the hashing performance of TotalSeq-A and -C antibodies, custom synthesized lipids and MULTI-seq lipid hashes in four cell lines, both for single-cell RNA-seq and single-nucleus RNA-seq. Hashing efficiency was evaluated using the intrinsic genetic variation of the cell lines. Benchmarking of different hashing strategies and computational pipelines indicates that correct demultiplexing can be achieved with both lipid- and antibody-hashed human cells and nuclei, with MULTISeqDemux as the preferred demultiplexing function and antibody-based hashing as the most efficient protocol on cells. Antibody hashing was further evaluated on clinical samples using PBMCs from healthy and SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, where we demonstrate a more affordable approach for large single-cell sequencing clinical studies, while simultaneously reducing batch effects.

scholarly journals Application of HER2 peptide vaccines in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zicong You ◽  
Weijun Zhou ◽  
Junyan Weng ◽  
Haizhan Feng ◽  
Peiqiao Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Cd8 T Cell ◽  
Delayed Type Hypersensitivity ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cell Numbers ◽  
Before And After

Abstract Background The E75 and GP2 vaccines are the few therapeutic vaccines targeting HER2 currently under clinical research for patients with breast cancer. Methods Databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, were used to retrieve clinical studies on E75 and GP2 vaccines. Retrieval time was from the beginning of database construction until May 31st, 2021. Results A total of 24 clinical studies were included in this analysis, including 1704 patients in the vaccinated group and 1248 patients in the control group. For the E75 vaccine, there were significant differences between the vaccinated group and the control group in the delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (SMD = 0.685 95% CI 0.52–0.85, PHeterogeneity = 0.186, PDTH < 0.05) and the change in CD8+ T-cell numbers (SMD = − 0.864, 95% CI − 1.02 to − 0.709, PHeterogeneity = 0.085, PCD8+ T cell < 0.05) before and after injection. For the GP2 vaccine, there was a significant difference between the vaccinated group and the control group in the change in CD8+ T-cell numbers (SMD = − 0.584, 95% CI − 0.803 to − 0.294, PHeterogeneity = 0.397, PCD8+ T cell < 0.05) before and after injection. In addition, the clinical outcomes, including recurrence rate (RR = 0.568, 95% CI 0.444–0.727, PHeterogeneity = 0.955, PRecurrence < 0.05) and disease-free survival rate (RR = 1.149, 95% CI 1.050–1.256, PHeterogeneity = 0.003, PDFS < 0.05), of the E75-vaccinated group were different from those of the control group. However, we found that the overall survival rate with the E75 vaccine (RR = 1.032, 95% CI 0.998–1.067, PHeterogeneity = 0.476, POS > 0.05) was not different between the two groups. Local and systemic toxicity assessments of the two vaccines showed minimal side effects. Conclusions The E75 vaccine was effective and safe in patients with breast cancer. The GP2 vaccine could elicit a strong immune response, but more trials are needed to confirm its clinical efficacy.

Comparative analysis of the survival rate of patients with HCC by schedule of tace

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Sei-Jong Kim ◽  
Chang-Hwan Park ◽  
Youn-Eun Joo ◽  
Sung-Kyu Choi ◽  
Jong-Sun Rew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Survival Rate

Hip prostheses in young adults. Surface prostheses and short-stem prostheses

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-152
Author(s):  
X. Gallart ◽  
J. Riba ◽  
J.A. Fernández-Valencia ◽  
G. Bori ◽  
E. Muñoz-Mahamud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Short Stem ◽  
Hip Prostheses

Comparative Analysis Of Survival Indicators Of Patients With Malignant Tumor , Who Received Disability Allowance In Andijan Region

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (05) ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Doniyor Tursunov Muhammadjon O’gli ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Malignant Tumor ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Standard Basis ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Primary Disability ◽  
Positive Effect

In this scientific article, the Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Oncology and Radiology of the Andijan Regional Department conducted a comparative analysis of the survival rate of 1825 patients with primary disability in 2017 and those who for some reason did not form. The results of the analysis showed that disability benefits had a positive effect on patients who developed disabilities at 12, 12-24 months and 24-36 months of age and, as a result, led to improved survival rates. All results are statistically processed on a standard basis.

scholarly journals Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 5534
Author(s):  
Felice Lorusso ◽  
Sammy Noumbissi ◽  
Inchingolo Francesco ◽  
Biagio Rapone ◽  
Ahmad G. A. Khater ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Bibliometric Review ◽  
Zirconia Implants

Background: The clinical use of zirconia implants has been shown to increase steadily due to their biological, aesthetic, and physical properties; therefore, this bibliometric study aimed to review the clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitation. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science databases using a comprehensive search strategy to 5 October 2020, and independently paired reviewers who screened studies, and collected data with inclusion criteria restricted to clinical research only (either prospective or retrospective). Data on article title, co-authors, number of citations received, journal details, publication year, country and institution involved, funding, study design, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, follow-up, and the author’s bibliometric data were collected and evaluated. Results: A total of 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020 as 41.4% were prospective cohort studies and 48.3% originated from Germany. Most of the included studies had been published in Clinical Oral Implant Research (n = 12), and the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg. The author with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8). Conclusions: This study revealed that zirconia implants have been more prominent in the last ten years, which is a valuable option for oral rehabilitation with marginal bone loss and survival rate comparable to titanium dental implants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document