Endnote x7 zitieren free.1 Introduction
Looking for:
Endnote x7 zitieren free |
Endnote x7 zitieren free - EndNote 20. New license. Windows & Mac
Endnote x7 zitieren free
The overall morbidity rate was The mortality rate in both groups was too low to allow for meaningful meta-analysis, with four deaths in the group undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery 1.
In conclusion, secondary CRS for recurrent ovarian cancer is a safe and feasible option in carefully pre-selected patients with comparable morbidity to primary CRS. Ovarian cancer is the ninth leading cause of cancer in women, but the fifth leading cause of all cancer-related deaths [1]. This late presentation can be attributed in part to the lack of any specific symptoms until disease has spread, as well as the absence of a screening test for early detection. Where patients present with advanced disease and are suitable for surgical intervention, cytoreductive surgery CRS , to achieve complete clearance of the abdominal cavity with no residual disease, is the gold standard of treatment and is associated with the most favorable survival outcomes [ 3 ].
CRS can be performed at the time of first diagnosis of ovarian cancer, when it is referred to as primary CRS, or for patients with recurrent disease as secondary cytoreduction. While primary CRS is accepted as a crucial step in the initial management of advanced ovarian cancer, the role of secondary CRS for recurrent disease is less well established.
Radical cytoreduction, incorporating upper abdominal procedures such as diaphragmatic resection and splenectomy, has been shown to increase overall survival and progression free survival compared to more conservative CRS [ 4 ]. Previous studies have shown survival outcomes for recurrent disease are only achieved in carefully pre-selected patients with complete cytoreduction [ 5 ]. Hence careful patient selection in a multidisciplinary team setting is important to identify those who are likely to benefit from CRS, as it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality [ 3 , 6 ] In order to confer any survival benefit, CRS should result in no macroscopic residual tumour with complete cytoreduction [ 7 ].
As previous studies defined optimal cytoreduciton with various criteria, meaningful comparative survival outcomes in secondary CRS were difficult [ 8 ]. Patients treated in specialist centers where a large volume of CRS are performed have shown improved survival and reduced morbidity [ 10 ].
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to review the morbidity and mortality associated with cytoreductive surgery in patients with primary and recurrent ovarian malignancy to assess if secondary CRS is comparable in terms of surgical complications.
A systematic literature search was performed for all publications that reported on morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery in primary and recurrent ovarian malignancy. Moreover, the reference lists of the relevant literatures were also screened. Original studies documenting morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing primary and secondary CRS for ovarian malignancy, including both primary and recurrent disease, were included for meta-analysis.
The overall search strategy was inclusive of alternative terms such as ovarian neoplasm, ovarian carcinoma, epithelial ovarian cancer, and synonyms for cytoreductive surgery debulking surgery OR cytoreduction surgery OR primary cytoreduction OR secondary cytoreduction. Publications were evaluated dependent on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria Figure 1. Reference lists of included studies were screened for additional relevant studies.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to retrieve citations by two independent reviewers and the abstracts were reviewed to select full papers for data analysis. Full text studies were further evaluated, and exclusion criteria were applied to identify final papers for inclusion. Additional discrepancies were agreed by consensus. For each study, data on baseline characteristics author institution, country, study period, total number of patients, surgical procedures performed, follow-up period and study methodology were extracted.
Periprocedural outcomes included stage at diagnosis, histological subtype, cytoreductive score, estimated blood loss EBL, expressed in litres [L] , units of red cells transfused, length of stay LOS , morbidity and mortality. Morbidities were recorded qualitatively and quantitatively.
Study methodological quality was assessed by applying the MINORS criteria for observational studies [ 11 , 12 ] Authors were contacted if data were not available or uninterpretable, with additional morbidity data provided by two authors [ 13 , 14 ].
Analyses were performed using RevMan software Review Manager, version 5. When median and range were presented, methods described by Hozo and colleagues were followed to derive mean and standard deviation [ 15 ]. Corresponding funnel plots of log standard error as a function of effect size were used to examine the effect of publication bias visually. A comprehensive search of databases resulted in a total of papers, of which remained for review after removal of duplicate papers.
Following review of titles, abstracts, 22 full text papers remained for analysis. Six studies were eventually included after meeting the study inclusion criteria Figure 2. There were patients in total, of whom Study sizes ranged from 33 to patients. Five studies were retrospective and one a prospective phase 2 study Table 1.
Of the six papers included, three were from Spain, one from Italy, one from Germany and one from Korea. All papers were published between and , with patients included from to All patients were at least FIGO stage 3, except 12 in the group with recurrent disease [ 12 , 13 ]. The majority of patients Histological subtype [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 22 , 23 ]. The extent of cytoreduction was described in four studies [ 3 , 17 , 18 ] with the extent of peritonectomy procedures similarly distributed among the two groups.
There were no differences between surgical operating times on primary vs. All studies also described cases of intestinal resection, with no significant preponderance toward resection in primary vs. Only two studies reported estimated intraoperative blood loss, and Park found no difference between the two groups, while Di Georgio found more blood loss in the group undergoing surgery for primary disease mean 2.
Qualitative representation of morbidities [ 15 , 22 , 23 ]. Perioperative morbidity was detailed in five studies [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 22 , 23 ]. The reintervention rate was not insignificant, with 8. Reasons for reintervention were only outlined in two studies [ 12 , 23 ] and included anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, other visceral perforation, rectovaginal fistula or intraabdominal abscess. Although all studies commented on postoperative mortality, there were too few deaths in either group to allow meaningful meta-analysis, with four deaths in the group undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery 1.
The rate of complete R0 resection was R1 resection was achieved in Two studies reported lymph node status, and again there were no differences between groups [ 15 , 23 ]. There were also no significant differences in 5-year survival between the two groups Funnel plots revealed substantial heterogeneity among all perioperative outcomes but not postoperative or oncological outcomes. Exclusion of studies not utilizing HIPEC still failed to demonstrate any significant difference in any outcome for those undergoing CRS for primary vs.
This meta-analysis demonstrates that secondary CRS can be performed with a similar morbidity and mortality as primary CRS in advanced ovarian cancer. While the overall morbidity and reoperation rates were not insignificant, the potential gains in survival associated with surgery validate CRS in recurrent disease as a beneficial option in carefully selected patients. Final results from the prospective randomized DESKTOP 3 trial comparing secondary CRS and chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in women with a positive AGO score are awaited, however preliminary results suggest a progression free survival benefit if complete gross resection can be achieved [ 13 ].
However, another prospective randomized control trial, GOG [ 23 ] found no benefit in overall survival or progression free survival in patients with recurrent disease who underwent secondary CRS compared to chemotherapy only when less stringent selection criteria were used.
Hence a comparable morbidity rate at secondary CRS is an important finding to further justify surgical intervention in recurrent disease with questionable improvements in survival, particularly as the final results and overall survival data from DESKTOP-III are awaited. Given the questionable benefit of secondary CRS for ovarian cancer, it is likely that younger patients with an excellent performance status will be offered surgery for recurrent disease, which may translate into lower peri-operative complication rates.
The main strength of this meta-analysis is that, to our knowledge, this is the first review to compare morbidity in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing CRS in primary and recurrent disease, and hence provides important evidence that morbidity is not increased at secondary CRS in carefully selected patients.
This meta-analysis has several limitations. As with any meta-analysis, the conclusions that can be drawn are subject to the limitations of the included studies. Notably, all except one of the included studies are retrospective and performed in single institutions, hence the risk of bias is high.
The included studies used different institution specific surgical and chemotherapy regimens which will also have an effect on the reported results. Furthermore, although Chi et al. In conclusion, secondary CRS for recurrent ovarian cancer is a reasonable approach in carefully pre-selected patients with comparable morbidity to primary CRS. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Competing interests: The funding organization s played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication. CA Cancer J Clin. Global cancer statistics, Surgical debulking of ovarian cancer: what difference does it make? Rev Obstet Gynecol.
Suche in Google Scholar PubMed. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. Ann Surg Oncol. Frenal JS, Leux C. Oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in primary or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: A pilot study of 31 patients. What are criteria that seem to have proven relevance for researchers to choose the right journal and gives tips.
Sharing research results with the world is key to the progress of your discipline and career. But with so many publications, how can you be sure you can trust a particular journal?
Follow this check list to make sure you choose trusted journals for your research. Choose a trustworthy journal for your research. The following regularly updated overview by ZB MED contains a selection of webinars dealing with Predatory Publishing -other topics are: open access, open data, open science, open educational resources, horizon , rights and licenses, FAIR data, repositories, peer review, altmetrics, research data management, predatory publishing.
Peer review is the system for evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it is of the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive appraisal, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise - how to do this shows this guide.
This discussion document covers: - the characteristics of predatory publications - deception using the name of an existing journal or a similar title to a well-established journal - how predatory publishers recruit authors - innocent victims of predatory publications and those willing to associate themselves with such journals - other stakeholders affected by predatory publishers - moral and legal responses - advice and further resources for funders, institutions, editors, peer reviewers, journals and publishers.
Nowadays, the scholarly community faces an increasing number of invitations to present at or attend conferences. Some of these are respectable, academic events, while others are misleading, exaggerated or even fake. In this initiative, we help scholars to recognise the characteristics of a trusted conference to attend and submit their abstracts through a number of steps and a check list. Simply follow these steps and you will rest assured that you attend only the most appropriate conferences.
Use this page to find a source and view associated metrics. Use qualitative as well as quantitative metrics when presenting your research impact. Always use more than one quantitative metric. QOAM is a market place for scientific and scholarly journals which publish articles in open access. Quality scoring of the journals in QOAM is based on academic crowd sourcing; price information includes institutional licensed pricing.
Reden wir offen Till Kreutzer und Prof. Folge 1: Reden wir offen ORCID iDs help authors disambiguate their work and display records for funding and grant applications.
Since the Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office supports scientists and their respective Helmholtz Centres in the implementation of open science. These openly accessible databases contain a significant and steadily growing share of the scientific output of the Helmholtz Association.
The following regularly updated overview by ZB MED contains a selection of webinars dealing with open access, open data, open science, open educational resources, horizon , rights and licenses, FAIR data, repositories, peer review, altmetrics, research data management, predatory publishing. Learn more about finding a journal for publication, open access, predatory journals, your copyright as an author via Toolkit Publish your Paper [ZBW Kiel].
The aim of this toolkit is to support researchers in finding a journal that publishes their paper and optimally promotes the visibility of their research. The "Guidelines on the Handling of Research Data" put the framework stipulated by the Principles into a concrete form in the DFG's funding arrangements.
This toolkit addresses research data management. This topic is a burden for many in the research routine. For researchers, however, it promises to be of great benefit if they document, secure and finally share their research data. When starting a new project and creating a Data Management Plan - DMP, one of the first considerations to make should be to decide, in advance, which file formats to use.
However, this has the negative consequence of making these data less interoperable. Moreover, file formats can be either lossless or lossy: that is, whether data is uncompressed such as TIFF for images or compressed such as JPEG for images to remove redundant information and thus reduce file size. It is common practice to do analyses on lossy data but this does not necessarily mean that these data should be the ones that should be kept for long-term storage.
In this context, it is highly likely that the most important file to consider for long-term storage through its curation lifecycle is either the first file that which was initially captured from an instrument or a direct lossless standard file format version from this one. Why is it necessary? How to deal with it? Raw data: By raw data we mean the original data that has been collected from a source and not yet processed or analysed.
Raw data will provide the foundation for any downstream analyses. In many cases the captured or collected data may be unique and impossible to reproduce, such as time points in weather measurements and interviews. For this reason, they should be safeguarded from any possible loss. Moreover, raw data will typically be lossless - i. For example, Leica microscopes use a proprietary data format but is also a container for lossless data - the container contains metadata specific to the Leica microscopes that allows reading, writing and analysis through Leica software.
See also our guide "Data formats for preservation" see link before. Data backup 3. Versioning 4. DFG] will be required to develop several versions of a Data Management Plan DMP , in which they will specify what data will be kept for the longer term. Other projects are invited to submit a Data Management Plan if it is relevant for their planned research. First steps 3. What is it: Not all research data are digital. Most researchers keep handwritten laboratory notebooks, journals and other materials, examples of which may be surveys, paintings, fossils, minerals and tissue.
However, non-digital data can be converted to a digital source in a variety of ways. Why digitize data 3. Digitizing versus Born digital 4. Golden copy 5. Retention period 6. Text digitizing 7. What is sensitive data: What is the best way of managing access to sensitive data?
This is not a straightforward question as it involves ethical, legal and technical issues to be tackled. This guide will help you on your way to preserve your sensitive data safely. It explains the different types of sensitive data, how to prepare them for storage and the possible cost involved in the process.
How to prepare sensitive data for storage and sharing 3. It is developed with funding from the DFG, can now be used free of charge by researchers for the preparation of text-based research materials. Users of the QualiAnon tool can highlight words or text passages and replace it with text pertinent to the category of information, on different levels of abstraction. Standardized lists can be used, and replacements can be made on a case- and study-specific basis.
QualiAnon documents the replacements and allows for data exports of varying sensitivity. The participation of over people from several countries indicates strong interest in the tool. Among the participants were researchers from different disciplines, research data managers, representatives of research data centers, repositories, authorities and institutions. The further development of the Qualiservice anonymization tool was mainly aimed at enabling it to be used outside of a particularly protected working environment of a research data center such as Qualiservice.
What is required? Horizonrequirements 2. Are data publishing costs supported? What are these repository certificates based on? Introduction: Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.
Why are the FAIR principles needed? The increasing availability of online resources means that data need to be created with longevity in mind. Providing other researchers with access to your data facilitates knowledge discovery and improves research transparency.
What is FAIR data 3. FAIR -in depth 4. Training materials. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. The principles emphasise machine-actionability i. This document helps Horizon beneficiaries make their research data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable FAIR , to ensure it is soundly managed. Good research data management is not a goal in itself, but rather the key conduit leading to knowledge discovery and innovation, and to subsequent data and knowledge integration and reuse.
There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings.
Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals.
This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community. Wilkinson, M. Sci Data 3, Data Management Resources Data management is a method used to handle, organise, structure and store research data throughout the research process. A good data management strategy takes into account technical, organisational, structural, legislative and sustainability aspects.
Data management describes the handling, organisation, and structuring of research material during the research process. On these pages we have collected useful information about how to maintain, preserve and share research data. Good data management practices are essential in research, to make sure that research data are of high quality, are well organised, documented, preserved and accessible and their validity controlled at all times.
This results in efficient and excelling research. Well managed data are easily shared and can thus be used for new research or to duplicate and validate existing research. Data management needs to be planned early on in research, so that practices can be implemented throughout the research cycle.
The German Data Forum has created the research data centre as a model solution for flexible and comprehensive access to sensitive data for science and research. Since their inception, the research data centres have played a pivotal role in the social, empirical and economic sciences and strengthened the international competitiveness of the German research landscape.
Researchers have a highly evolved and sustainable research infrastructure at their disposal, which is a result of independent initiatives from within the scientific community. A decentralized network of 38 data centers provides researchers with user-friendly and cost-efficient access to a wide range of relevant data.
The equal representation of data users and producers and the strong will to work together to face the present and future challenges make the German Data Forum RatSWD a body offering both depth and breadth of expertise. It plays a key role in further developing research infrastructures for the empirical social, behavioural, and economic sciences and in making the general legal and political environment more research-friendly.
To achieve these goals, the German Data Forum RatSWD advises the establishment of research data centres RDC as a model solution for flexible and comprehensive access to sensitive data for science and research. Since their inception, the RDCs have played a pivotal role in the social, behavioural, and economic sciences and strengthened the international competitiveness of the German research landscape.
The RDCs coordinate their activities to optimise their services see also the following chapter. Research support staff, such as data stewards, IT support staff, librarians or policy officers, often have different levels of understanding of research data management.
However, they need to collaborate closely to offer state-of-the-art support for researchers wishing to do responsible data management. The following regularly updated overview by ZB MED contains a selection of webinars dealing with Research Data Management -other topics are: open access, open data, open science, open educational resources, horizon , rights and licenses, FAIR data, repositories, peer review, altmetrics, research data management, predatory publishing.
This leaflet explains data management. Increasingly, funders will require you to submit a data management plan when you apply for a grant.
This means you will have to describe your plans for research data management during the research project. This will be reviewed together with the rest of your application. Projects participating in the Horizon Open Research Data Pilot and more and more other funders will be required to develop several versions of a Data Management Plan DMP , in which they will specify what data will be kept for the longer term.
DMPonline helps you to create, review, and share data management plans that meet institutional and funder requirements. You can publish research data from the life sciences in compliance with the specific and organizational conditions of the host in the following research data repositories. It is possible to filter the table by criteria stated in the column headings to make a selection of suitable repositories.
Please push the drop down buttons to select those criteria which are relevant to you. Want to make your research more reproducible? The tools are organized by stages in the life cycle of a research project. While some tools are specific to that community, others would be useful to other research communities.
We tried to list non-commercial tools wherever possible. What is Open Data? Where is Open Data? Why is Open Data important? How might data sharing benefit me?
Which data should I share? How can I share personal data while accounting for data protection? Which data might not be suitable? Where can I share data? Where can I share data that do not accompany a full-length article publication? How can I share data? When to share data? How should I reference a dataset in my publication? How can I find data for re-use? How will I be recognized for sharing data? How will I be recognized for re-using data? Where can I acquire related skills and get support?
Where can I find more information? In diesem Spezial geht es um professionelle Tipps zur Literaturrecherche im Internet. Raus aus den Bibliotheken, rein in die Welt der Datenbanken. In this paper we provide a step-by-step explanation—there are just five steps—of the methods behind reviewing, and the quality elements inherent in each step Box 1. For purposes of illustration we use a published review concerning the safety of public water fluoridation, but we must emphasize that our subject is review methodology, not fluoridation.
At this Cochrane Consumer network's page the most relevant aspects are summarized. If you are considering doing a systematic review or meta-analysis, this step-by-step guide aims to support you along the way.
It explains the background to these methodologies, what is involved, and how to get started, keep going, and finish! Das Manual eignet sich durch die Darstellung der zehn Schritte zur systematischen Litera-turrecherche in Fachdatenbanken als allgemeiner Leitfaden zur Vorgehensweise.
Dabei wird jeder Schritt in einem einzelnen Beitrag beschrieben. Die Auswahl der zu durchsuchenden Fachdatenbanken im Rahmen von Systematic Reviews sollte reflektiert erfolgen, da sie sich auf das Ergebnis der Literaturrecherche und -analyse auswirken kann. Methodological criteria to be considered step by step in the selection of databases include the thematic focus of the databases and a sensitive or specific approach to searching. Pragmatic considerations such as database accessibility do not correspond to a high-quality methodical approach.
However, they cannot always be disregarded. Keywords: databases, literature search, methods, systematic reviews. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official guide that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions. All authors should consult the Handbook for guidance on the methods used in Cochrane systematic reviews.
The Handbook includes guidance on the standard methods applicable to every review planning a review, searching and selecting studies, data collection, risk of bias assessment, statistical analysis, GRADE and interpreting results , as well as more specialised topics non-randomized studies, adverse effects, complex interventions, equity, economics, patient-reported outcomes, individual patient data, prospective meta-analysis, and qualitative research. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.
We are hoping that it will be formally published later in We completed compiling, synthesizing, and addressing the over comments and suggestions we received from the tremendously supportive and engaged community of information specialists, librarians, and systematic review methodologists.
The Delphi process and consensus conference took place in The need for a specific extension for search reporting was made clear through many studies regarding the irreproducibility of searches.
Gute wissenschaftliche Praxis bedeutet sauberes wissenschaftliches Arbeiten unter Beachtung des Urheberrechts und der internen Richtlinien. The consequences are potentially significant for many areas of biological and broader scientific research.
The symposium on April aimed to explore the challenges and opportunities for improving the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research and considered the implications for the future of biomedical research in particular. Die Ergebnisse sind im Folgenden auszugsweise wiedergegeben.
❿ ❿
Comments
Post a Comment