Abstract
Objective: Identify the frequency of negative appendectomy (NA) and associated
factors associated in a private hospital in Lima.
Methods: Retrospective study of all appendectomies performed between 2012
and 2013 at a private hospital of Lima-Peru. We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent appendectomy and had a medical report of emergency.
We excluded the ones without pathology reports. Adjusted ORs were calculated
with a logistic regression model to identify factors associated with AN.
Results: Three hundred seventy-six appendectomies were performed for
suspected appendicitis 55.9% in women). The average patient age was 33.4 ± 17.6
years. We identified 28 AN cases of 363 patients (7.7%). We found that pain in
right flank (aOR: 5.4; 95%CI: 1.4-20.8), negative Mc Burney (aOR: 3.6; 95%CI: 1.3-
10.5), pain in hypogastrium (aOR: 3.1; 95%CI: 1.1-8.4) and no leucocitosis (aOR:
2.9; 95%CI: 1.2-6.7) were associated factors to AN. Gynecologic conditions (53.6%)
and complicated diverticular disease (14.3%) are the most common diagnosis in
AN cases.
Conclusion: The obtained results indicate that the presence of pain in the right
flank, negative Mc Burney, pain in hypogastrium and no leukocytosis are factors
that can be taken into account to prevent negative appendectomy.
Autores: Prialé Prialé, G.; Mayta Tristán, Percy
Fuente: Archivos de Medicina (2015)
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/550729
lunes, 27 de abril de 2015
sábado, 25 de abril de 2015
Peer review: still king in the digital age
ABSTRACT
The article presents one of the main fi ndings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer-review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but it has not signifi cantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although signifi cantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other signifi cant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.
Authors: David Nicholas; Anthony Watkinson; Hamit R. Jamali; Eti Herman; Carol Tenopir; Rachel Volentine; Suzie Allard; Kenneth Levine
URL: http://bit.ly/1zZb2Fo
The article presents one of the main fi ndings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer-review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but it has not signifi cantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although signifi cantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other signifi cant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.
Authors: David Nicholas; Anthony Watkinson; Hamit R. Jamali; Eti Herman; Carol Tenopir; Rachel Volentine; Suzie Allard; Kenneth Levine
URL: http://bit.ly/1zZb2Fo
Springer launches book metrics tool
Springer has developed a new platform, Bookmetrix, to offer title and chapter level metrics across all of their books.
Bookmetrix has been developed in partnership with Altmetric.
The data captured on Bookmetrix is displayed on the book pages of Springer's content platform SpringerLink and reports on how often an individual book or chapter is mentioned, shared, reviewed or read online, updating in real time.
Martijn Roelandse, manager for publishing innovation at Springer, said: "Bookmetrix will change the way we look at books. We really wanted to create palace for our authors and editors that collates all possible book metrics in one place." Five tabs on a "book overview" page show the number of citations each book or chapter receives, the number of times it has discussed, mentioned or shared in online sources, how many people from which countries of origin have saved the book chapter in their Reference Manager, excerpts of book reviews and monthly/total download numbers as recorded via Springerlink.
Springer is the first publisher to offer data from Bookmetrics but a spokesperson said: "We anticipate great interest in this technology from a wide range of publishers."
Source: http://www.thebookseller.com/
miércoles, 22 de abril de 2015
Article of the future
Elsevier invests in platform innovation bringing together solutions like SciVerse ScienceDirect, SciVerse Scopus and web/third party content into one point of access: SciVerse. Now, through the Article of the Future project, Elsevier is redefining the article and associated article page on SciVerse ScienceDirect to allow for an optimal exchange of formal scientific research between scientists.
Source: Elsevier
Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief
Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that there was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)