Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.238
Filtrar
1.
Recurso na Internet em Português | LIS - Localizador de Informação em Saúde | ID: lis-LISBR1.1-47679

RESUMO

A Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) continua e acelera seu trabalho em áreas-chave para apoiar os países das Américas a manejarem os graves efeitos sociais e à saúde da pandemia de COVID-19. Em um novo relatório, o organismo internacional detalha sua ampla resposta em mobilização e apoio técnico à emergência desde que os primeiros casos foram notificados, em janeiro de 2020.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , América/epidemiologia , Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde/organização & administração , Relatório de Pesquisa
2.
Zhonghua Yi Shi Za Zhi ; 50(1): 15-20, 2020 Jan 28.
Artigo em Chinês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32564532

RESUMO

"The Research Report on Epidemic Prevention of Army Medical School Ⅱ: Vol.1, No.36" , the report named "various symptoms and serological responses of human body after receiving ultrasonic cholera vaccine" is one of the declassified materials of Japanese biological warfare. The author is M. D. Watanabe Be. Through detailed analysis of its contents, such as institute of report, test method, test results, and so forth, conclusion is reached that Unit 731 did conduct scientific research based on human-subject experiment to launch biological warfare on human beings. The report mentioned above is one of the most important evidence of crime that Japan conducts biological warfare which violates international convention and contempt bottom line of human basic morals and ethics.


Assuntos
Armas Biológicas/ética , Epidemias/prevenção & controle , Experimentação Humana/ética , Relatório de Pesquisa , Humanos , Japão , Princípios Morais , Faculdades de Medicina
4.
Stud Health Technol Inform ; 270: 203-207, 2020 Jun 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32570375

RESUMO

Radiology reports include various types of clinical information that are used for patient care. Reports are also expected to have secondary uses (e.g., clinical research and the development of decision support systems). For secondary use, it is necessary to extract information from the report and organize it in a structured format. Our goal is to build an application to transform radiology reports written in a free-text form into a structured format. To this end, we propose an end-to-end method that consists of three elements. First, we built a neural network model to extract clinical information from the reports. We experimented on a dataset of chest X-ray reports. Second, we transformed the extracted information into a structured format. Finally, we built a tool that enabled the transformation of terms in reports to standard forms. Through our end-to-end method, we could obtain a structured radiology dataset that was easy to access for secondary use.


Assuntos
Processamento de Linguagem Natural , Redes Neurais de Computação , Sistemas de Informação em Radiologia , Radiologia , Humanos , Relatório de Pesquisa , Software , Redação
5.
Int. j. morphol ; 38(3): 774-786, June 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: biblio-1098319

RESUMO

SUMMARY: Research reporting statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales can improve quality of reporting results in biomedical research. The aim of this study was to describe statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales available for reporting results and quality of conduct in biomedical research. Systematic review. All types statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales generated to improve the quality of the biomedical research results report were included. Data sources: EMBASE, HINARI, MEDLINE and Redalyc; in the libraries BIREME-BVS, SciELO and The Cochrane Library; in the meta-searchers Clinical Evidence and TRIP Database; and on the Websites of EQUATOR Network, BMC Medical Education and EUROPE PMC were used. The recovered documents were grouped as study design related to systematic reviews (SR) meta-analysis and meta-reviews, CT and RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, clinical practice guidelines; biological material, animal and preclinical studies; qualitative studies; economic evaluation and decision analysis studies; and methodological quality (MQ) scales). The 93 documents were obtained. 19 for SR (QUOROM, MOOSE, AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, PRISMA, PRISMA-Equity, PRISMA-C, PRISMA-IPD, PRISMA-NMA, PRISMA-RR, PRESS, PRISMA-Search, PRISMA-TCM, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-P, MARQ, GRAPH, ROBIS), 32 for CT and RCTs (CONSORT and it update, STRICTA, RedHot, NPT, CONSORT-PRO, CONSORT-SPI, IMPRINT, TIDieR, CT in orthodontics, "n-de-1", PAFS, KCONSORT, STORK, Protocol health data, SW-CRT, ADs, MAPGRT, PRT, TREND, GNOSIS, ISPOR RCT Report, Newcastle-Ottawa, REFLECT, Ottawa, SPIRIT, SPIRIT-C, SPAC, StaRI, TRIALS, ROBINS-I, ROB 2), 11 for observational studies (STROBE, STREGA, STROBE-nut, INSPIRE, STROME-ID, STROBE-Vet, RECORD, ORION, STNS, MInCir-ODS, GATHER), 10 for diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD and it update, ARDENT, QUADAS, QUADAS-2, QAREL and it update, GRRAS, TRIPOD, APOSTEL), 3 for clinical practice guidelines (AGREE, AGREE II, RIGHT), 10 for biological material, animal and preclinical studies (MIAME, REMARK, SQUIRE, SQUIRE 2.0, REHBaR, ARRIVE, GRIPS, CARE, AQUA, PREPARE), 5 for qualitative studies (COREQ, ENTREQ, GREET and it update, SRQR), and 3 for economic evaluations (NHS-HTA, NICE-STA, CHEERS). There are a great variety of statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists with its extensions and scales available. These can be used to improve the quality of the report and the quality of conduct of scientific articles, by authors, reviewers and editors.


RESUMEN: El uso de recomendaciones, propuestas, listas de verificación y escalas pueden mejorar la calidad del informe de resultados en investigación biomédica. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir las declaraciones, recomendaciones, propuestas, directrices, listas de verificación y escalas disponibles para informar resultados y calidad metodológica en investigación biomédica. Revisión sistemática. Se incluyeron todas las tipos de declaraciones, recomendaciones, propuestas, pautas, listas de verificación y escalas disponibles para informar resultados y calidad metodológica en investigación biomédica. Fuentes de datos: EMBASE, HINARI, MEDLINE y Redalyc; bibliotecas BIREME-BVS, SciELO y The Cochrane Library; metabuscadores Clinical Evidence y TRIP Database; sitios Web EQUATOR Network, BMC Medical Education y EUROPE PMC. Los documentos recuperados se agruparon por tipo de diseño de estudio: revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos (EC), estudios cuasi experimentales, observacionales, de precisión diagnóstica, guías de práctica clínica (GPC); de material biológico, estudios animales y preclínicos; estudios cualitativos; estudios de evaluación económica y estudios de análisis de decisiones; y escalas de calidad metodológica (CM). se obtuvieron 93 documentos. 19 para RS (QUOROM, MOOSE, AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, PRISMA, PRISMA-Equity, PRISMA-C, PRISMA-IPD, PRISMA-NMA, PRISMA-RR, PRESS, PRISMA-Search, PRISMA-TCM, PRISMAScR, PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-P, MARQ, GRAPH, ROBIS), 32 para EC (CONSORT y su actualización, STRICTA, RedHot, NPT, CONSORT-PRO, CONSORT-SPI, IMPRINT, TIDieR, CT en ortodoncia, "n-de-1 ", PAFS, KCONSORT, STORK, datos de salud del protocolo, SW-CRT, ADs, MAPGRT, PRT, TREND, GNOSIS, ISPOR RCT Report, Newcastle-Ottawa, REFLECT, Ottawa, SPIRIT, SPIRIT-C, SPAC, StaRI , PRUEBAS, ROBINS-I, ROB 2), 11 para estudios observacionales (STROBE, STREGA, STROBE-nut, INSPIRE, STROME-ID, STROBE-Vet, RECORD, ORION, STNS, MInCir-ODS, GATHER), 10 para estudios de precisión diagnóstica (STARD y su update, ARDENT, QUADAS, QUADAS-2, QAREL y su update, GRRAS, TRIPOD, APOSTEL), 3 para GPC (AGREE, AGREE II, RIGHT), 10 para material biológico, animal y estudios preclínicos (MIAME, REMARK, SQUIRE, SQUIRE 2.0, REHBaR, ARRIVE, GRIPS, CARE, AQUA, PREPARE), 5 para estudios cualitativos (COREQ, ENTREQ, GREET y su update, SRQR), y 3 para evaluaciones económicas (NHS-HTA, NICE-STA, CHEERS). Existe una gran variedad de instrumentos disponibles. Estos pueden ser utilizados por autores, revisores y editores; para mejorar la calidad del informe y de la CM de artículos científicos.


Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Controle de Qualidade , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Lista de Checagem
8.
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi ; 41(5): 776-781, 2020 May 10.
Artigo em Chinês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32447924

RESUMO

This paper introduceds the tool named as "Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool" (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability in prediction model studies and the relevant items and steps of assessment. PROBAST is organized into four domains including participants, predictors, outcome and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of risk of bias occurring in study design, conduct or analysis. Through comprehensive judgment, the risk of bias and applicability of original study is categorized as high, low or unclear. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the risk of bias of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be also used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies.


Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa , Viés , Relatório de Pesquisa , Medição de Risco
12.
; FIOCRUZ.
Recurso na Internet em Português | LIS - Localizador de Informação em Saúde | ID: lis-LISBR1.1-47290

RESUMO

Um grupo de pesquisadores da Fiocruz e da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) acaba de produzir um relatório sobre o risco de disseminação da Covid-19 entre populações indígenas a partir da vulnerabilidade geográfica e sociodemográfica desse segmento.


Assuntos
Saúde de Populações Indígenas , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Grupos Populacionais , Relatório de Pesquisa
15.
PLoS One ; 15(4): e0231258, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32271810

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Advances in surgical techniques have improved clinical outcomes and decreased complications. At the same time, heightened attention to care quality has resulted in increased identification of hospital-acquired adverse events. We evaluated these divergent effects on the reported safety of lung cancer resection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed hospital-acquired adverse events in patients undergoing lung cancer resection using the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) database from 2001-2010. Demographics, diagnoses, and procedures data were abstracted using ICD-9 codes. We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) to identify hospital-acquired adverse events. Weighted analyses were performed using t-tests and chi-square. RESULTS: A total of 302,444 hospitalizations for lung cancer resection and were included in the analysis. Incidence of PSI increased over time (28% in 2001-2002 vs 34% in 2009-2010; P<0.001). Those with one or more PSI had increased in-hospital mortality (aOR = 11.1; 95% CI, 4.7-26.1; P<0.001) and prolonged hospitalization (12.5 vs 7.8 days; P<0.001). However, among those with PSI, in-hospital mortality decreased over time, from 17% in 2001-2002 to 2% in 2009-2010. CONCLUSIONS: In a recent ten-year period, documented rates of adverse events associated with lung cancer resection increased. Despite this increase in safety events, we observed that mortality decreased. Because such metrics may be incorporated into hospital rankings and reimbursement considerations, adverse event coding consistency and content merit further evaluation.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirurgia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Relatório de Pesquisa , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Segurança do Paciente , Fatores de Tempo , Adulto Jovem
16.
Int Endod J ; 53(6): 774-803, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32266988

RESUMO

Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.


Assuntos
Endodontia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa , Consenso , Guias como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
17.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ; 47(7): 1645-1648, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32232520

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The aim of this short communication is to outline our experience in policies and processes of a nuclear medicine service during the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore. METHODS: We describe the key considerations of policies and processes that have been implemented in our nuclear medicine service since the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Singapore General Hospital on 23 January 2020, up to the present time. RESULTS: Infection control, screening of patients and visitors, segregation of risk groups, segregation of staff and service continuity plans, communication and staff welfare, using electronic platforms for multi-disciplinary meetings and tele-reporting are discussed. CONCLUSION: Since our hospital received the first patient with COVID-19 in Singapore, our centre has managed 16 COVID-19 cases to date. There has not been any healthcare worker in our institution who has contracted COVID-19 through patient contact. We have highlighted for discussion some of the policies and processes to prepare a nuclear medicine service for the COVID-19 threat.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças , Medicina Nuclear , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Comunicação , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Relatório de Pesquisa , Risco , Segurança
19.
PLoS Biol ; 18(3): e3000693, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32210426

RESUMO

Prestigious scientific journals traditionally decide which articles to accept at least partially based on the results of research. This backloaded selectivity enforces publication bias and encourages authors to selectively report their most persuasive findings, even when they are misleading, biased, and unreliable. One answer to backloaded selectivity is to curtail editorial selectivity altogether, deciding publication on the basis of technical merit alone. However, this strategy is unlikely to win appeal among highly selective journals. A third way is to frontload selectivity-reaching editorial decisions based on rigorous evaluation of the research question and methodology but before the research is conducted and thus regardless of the eventual results. This model, now offered at PLOS Biology in the form of "Preregistered Research Articles" (or Registered Reports), allows a scientific journal to maintain high selectivity for the importance and rigor of research while simultaneously eliminating outcome bias by editors, reviewers, and authors. I believe the rise of Registered Reports among selective journals will change how research is evaluated and may trigger the realization that frontloaded selectivity is the most secure way of advancing knowledge.


Assuntos
Editoração/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Editoração/organização & administração , Editoração/tendências
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA