| 2. |
- Ayres-de-Campos, Diogo, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Perinatal Medicine (EAPM), European Board and College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (EBCOG), European Midwives Association (EMA). Joint position statement : Substandard and disrespectful care in labour - because words matter
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. - : Elsevier. - 0301-2115 .- 1872-7654. ; 296, s. 205-207
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Substandard or disrespectful care during labour should be of serious concern for healthcare professionals, as it can affect one of the most important events in a woman's life. Substandard care refers to the use of interventions that are not considered best -practice, to the inadequate execution of interventions, to situations where bestpractice interventions are withheld from patients, or there is lack of adequate informed consent. Disrespectful care refers to forms of verbal and non-verbal communication that affect patients' dignity, individuality, privacy, intimacy, or personal beliefs. There are many possible underlying causes for substandard and disrespectful care in labour, including difficulties in modifying behaviours, judgmental or paternalistic attitudes, personal interests and individualism, and a human tendency to make less arduous, less difficult, or less stressful clinical decisions. The term "obstetric violence" is used in some parts of the world to describe various forms of substandard and disrespectful care in labour, but suggests that it is mainly carried out by obstetricians and is a serious form of aggression, carried out with the intent to cause harm. We believe that this term should not be used, as it does not help to identify the underlying problem, its causes, or its correction. In addition, it is generally seen by obstetricians and other healthcare professionals as an unjust and offensive term, generating a defensive and less collaborative mindset. We reach out to all individuals and institutions sharing the common goal of improving women's experience during labour, to work together to address the underlying causes of substandard and disrespectful care, and to develop common strategies to deal with this problem, based on mutual comprehension, trust and respect
|
|
| 3. |
- Stadil, Tatjana, et al.
(författare)
-
Surgical treatment and major complications within the first year of life in newborns with long-gap esophageal atresia gross type A and B : a systematic review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pediatric Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-3468 .- 1531-5037. ; 54:11, s. 2242-2249
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The surgical repair of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) is still a challenge and there is no consensus on the preferred method of reconstruction. We performed a systematic review of the surgical treatment of LGEA Gross type A and B with the primary aim to compare the postoperative complications related to the different methods within the first postoperative year.Methods: Systematic literature review on the surgical repair of LGEA Gross type A and B within the first year of life published from January 01, 1996 to November 01, 2016.Results: We included 57 artides involving a total of 326 patients of whom 289 had a Gross type A LGEA. Delayed primary anastomosis (DPA) was the most applied surgical method (68.4%) in both types, followed by gastric pull-up (GPU) (83%). Anastomotic stricture (53.7%), gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) (32.2%) and anastomotic leakage (22.7%) were the most common postoperative complications, with stricture and GER occurring more often after DPA (61.9% and 40.8% respectively) compared to other methods (p < 0.001).Conclusion: The majority of patients in this review were managed by DPA and postoperative complications were common despite the surgical method, with anastomotic stricture and GER being most common after DPA.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jonsson, Pär, et al.
(författare)
-
Constrained randomization and multivariate effect projections improve information extraction and biomarker pattern discovery in metabolomics studies involving dependent samples
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Metabolomics. - : Springer. - 1573-3882 .- 1573-3890. ; 11:6, s. 1667-1678
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Analytical drift is a major source of bias in mass spectrometry based metabolomics confounding interpretation and biomarker detection. So far, standard protocols for sample and data analysis have not been able to fully resolve this. We present a combined approach for minimizing the influence of analytical drift on multivariate comparisons of matched or dependent samples in mass spectrometry based metabolomics studies. The approach is building on a randomization procedure for sample run order, constrained to independent randomizations between and within dependent sample pairs (e.g. pre/post intervention). This is followed by a novel multivariate statistical analysis strategy allowing paired or dependent analyses of individual effects named OPLS-effect projections (OPLS-EP). We show, using simulated data that OPLS-EP gives improved interpretation over existing methods and that constrained randomization of sample run order in combination with an appropriate dependent statistical test increase the accuracy and sensitivity and decrease the false omission rate in biomarker detection. We verify these findings and prove the strength of the suggested approach in a clinical data set consisting of LC/MS data of blood plasma samples from patients before and after radical prostatectomy. Here OPLS-EP compared to traditional (independent) OPLS-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) on constrained randomized data gives a less complex model (3 versus 5 components) as well a higher predictive ability (Q2 = 0.80 versus Q2 = 0.55). We explain this by showing that paired statistical analysis detects 37 unique significant metabolites that were masked for the independent test due to bias, including analytical drift and inter-individual variation.
|
|
