scholarly journals Clinical Research Publication by Spanish Dermatologists Over Time and in Comparison With Other Research Groups in 2008

2010 ◽  
Vol 101 (6) ◽  
pp. 534-541
Author(s):  
B. Aranegui ◽  
I. García-Doval ◽  
A. García-Cruz
Author(s):  
Philip A. Mackowiak

Patients as Art: Forty Thousand Years of Medical History in Drawings, Paintings, and Sculpture traces the history of medicine through works of art stretching from the Paleolithic period to the present. Long before humans could write, before they had a medical science or possibly even a religion, they had art. Where works of art have involved patients, they have provided insight beyond aspects of sickness and health and life and death that can never be explained by science alone—humanistic aspects of the patient experience that can’t be measured or weighed or dissected. The works analyzed in this book, each of which features one or more patients, were chosen for their esthetic appeal and for the skill with which they depict important developments in medicine over time. Together they offer a compelling perspective on the history of medicine that reflects the outward expressions of artists’ innermost feelings and personal prejudices. In analyzing these works, medical historian Dr. Philip Mackowiak brings the perspective of an internist with over four decades of experience caring for patients, teaching doctors-in-training, and conducting clinical research.


1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence D. Shriberg

I have argued that notwithstanding considerable research activity in developmental phonological disorders, the basic questions remain unanswered. I have proposed that a central problem with the research culture in child phonology is that it includes too little cross-laboratory collaboration of the type seen when significant breakthroughs are reported in other biological and social sciences. Finally, I have suggested the need for a shared classification system for developmental phonological disorders—to promote cross-laboratory research, as well as to strengthen the efforts of individual clinical research groups. As stressed by one of my teachers, Ralph Shelton, collaboration is a cornerstone of scholarship. I am optimistic that our discipline will evolve toward a productive 21st century marked by vital, collaborative scholarship.


Cancer ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 117 (10) ◽  
pp. 2018-2018
Author(s):  
Carrie Printz

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. e1167-e1173
Author(s):  
Jenny X. Chen ◽  
Jonathon P. Whitton ◽  
Aravindakshan Parthasarathy ◽  
Kenneth E. Hancock ◽  
Daniel B. Polley

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552110432
Author(s):  
Stefano Negrini ◽  
William Mark Magnus Levack ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Carlotte Kiekens

Purpose: Responding to a recent editorial arguing against defining rehabilitation, we discuss the reasons for developing a classification of rehabilitation for research purposes, its philosophical background and some of the possible risks. Why define: Science requires the definition and classification of phenomena to allow replication of experiments and studies, and to allow interpretation and use of the findings. As understanding increases, the definitions can be refined. Defining rehabilitation does run the risk of excluding some interventions or practices that are either considered rehabilitation (perhaps wrongly) or are rehabilitation interventions; when identified, these errors in definition can be remedied. Defining rehabilitation for research purposes should not inhibit but could (possibly) orient research. Risk of not: Without a definition, rehabilitation will remain in a permanent limbo. Experts will (apparently) know what it is, while others are left guessing or failing to comprehend or recognise it. This uncertainty may reassure some people, because all possible interventions are included; we argue that it downgrades the understanding of our field because interventions that are not rehabilitation are, nonetheless, called rehabilitation. In an era of international collaboration, and of undertaking systematic reviews with metanalysis, we need a shared definition. Conclusion: Terminology is often controversial, but definition enables progress in understanding such that terms themselves can evolve over time.


Author(s):  
Ana Belén Barragán Martín ◽  
María del Mar Molero Jurado ◽  
María del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes ◽  
María del Mar Simón Márquez ◽  
África Martos Martínez ◽  
...  

In recent years, cyberbullying has been recognized as a severe public health problem and is drawing growing interest. The objective of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the scientific production on adolescent cyberbullying in the last decade. A search for publications was made in the Web of Science database, where the 1530 documents identified were analyzed with BibExcel software and visualized using the Pajek and VOSviewer tools. The predominant language in the publications was English, followed by Spanish. The publication rate was shown to have increased in recent years. The journal “Computers in Human Behavior” had the highest production. The repercussion of new technologies on this phenomenon has been felt, and research groups have enlarged their production in response to the problem. A systematic review and/or meta-analysis examining the contents of the studies identified and the variables related to this problem is therefore necessary. This could identify a point of reference for research in this field and a basis for future reviews of its development and progress over time.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Duffett ◽  
Deborah J Cook ◽  
Geoff Strong ◽  
Jan Hau Lee ◽  
Michelle E Kho

AbstractImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for high-quality evidence in critical care, while also increasing the barriers to conducting the research needed to produce such evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care clinical research.DesignMonthly electronic survey (March - August 2020).SettingAdult or pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) from any country participating in at least one research study before the COVID-19 pandemic.ParticipantsWe recruited one researcher or research coordinator per center, identified via established research networks.Intervention(s)NoneMain Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Primary: Suspending recruitment in clinical research; Secondary: impact of specific factors on research conduct (5-point scales from no effect to very large effect). We assessed the association between research continuity and month, presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and population (pediatric vs. adult ICU) using mixed-effects logistic regression.Results126 centers (56% pediatric) from 23 countries participated. 95 (75%) of centers suspended recruitment in at least some studies and 37 (29%) suspended recruitment in all studies on at least one month. The proportion of centers reporting recruitment in all studies increased over time (OR per month 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5, p = 0.007), controlling for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and type of ICU (pediatric vs. other). The five factors most frequently identified as having a large or very large effect on clinical research were: local prioritization of COVID-19 specific research (68, 54%), infection control policies limiting access to patients with COVID-19 (61, 49%), infection control policies limiting access to the ICU (52, 41.6%), increased workload of clinical staff (38, 30%), and safety concerns of research staff (36, 29%).Conclusions and RelevanceDecisions to pause or pursue clinical research varied across centers. Research activity increased over time, despite the presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Guiding principles to safely sustain research during this and future pandemic waves are urgently needed.Key PointsQuestionWhat was the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on research in 126 adult and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) between March and August 2020? Findings95 (75%) centers suspended recruitment in at least some studies. Decisions to continue recruitment increased over time (OR per month 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5, p = 0.007), controlling for ICU type and the presence of patients with COVID-19.MeaningResearch activity varied across centers and increased over time, despite the presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Guiding principles to safely sustain research during this and future pandemic waves are urgently needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document