SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Hemingway H.) srt2:(2010-2014)"

Sökning: WFRF:(Hemingway H.) > (2010-2014)

  • Resultat 1-6 av 6
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Schael, S., et al. (författare)
  • Electroweak measurements in electron positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP
  • 2013
  • Ingår i: Physics Reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 532:4, s. 119-244
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Electroweak measurements performed with data taken at the electron positron collider LEP at CERN from 1995 to 2000 are reported. The combined data set considered in this report corresponds to a total luminosity of about 3 fb(-1) collected by the four LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, 13 and OPAL, at centre-of-mass energies ranging from 130 GeV to 209 GeV. Combining the published results of the four LEP experiments, the measurements include total and differential cross-sections in photon-pair, fermion-pair and four-fermion production, the latter resulting from both double-resonant WW and ZZ production as well as singly resonant production. Total and differential cross-sections are measured precisely, providing a stringent test of the Standard Model at centre-of-mass energies never explored before in electron positron collisions. Final-state interaction effects in four-fermion production, such as those arising from colour reconnection and Bose Einstein correlations between the two W decay systems arising in WW production, are searched for and upper limits on the strength of possible effects are obtained. The data are used to determine fundamental properties of the W boson and the electroweak theory. Among others, the mass and width of the W boson, m(w) and Gamma(w), the branching fraction of W decays to hadrons, B(W -> had), and the trilinear gauge-boson self-couplings g(1)(Z), K-gamma and lambda(gamma), are determined to be: m(w) = 80.376 +/- 0.033 GeV Gamma(w) = 2.195 +/- 0.083 GeV B(W -> had) = 67.41 +/- 0.27% g(1)(Z) = 0.984(-0.020)(+0.018) K-gamma - 0.982 +/- 0.042 lambda(gamma) = 0.022 +/- 0.019. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  •  
4.
  •  
5.
  • Hemingway, H, et al. (författare)
  • The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for the prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary revascularisation: a systematic review and decision model.
  • 2010
  • Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - : National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. - 1366-5278 .- 2046-4924. ; 14:9, s. 1-178
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of strategies based on conventional clinical information and novel circulating biomarkers for prioritising patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 until 30 November 2008.REVIEW METHODS: We carried out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of literature-based estimates of the prognostic effects of circulating biomarkers in stable coronary disease. We assessed five routinely measured biomarkers and the eight emerging (i.e. not currently routinely measured) biomarkers recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Angina guidelines. The cost-effectiveness of prioritising patients on the waiting list for CABG using circulating biomarkers was compared against a range of alternative formal approaches to prioritisation as well as no formal prioritisation. A decision-analytic model was developed to synthesise data on a range of effectiveness, resource use and value parameters necessary to determine cost-effectiveness. A total of seven strategies was evaluated in the final model.RESULTS: We included 390 reports of biomarker effects in our review. The quality of individual study reports was variable, with evidence of small study (publication) bias and incomplete adjustment for simple clinical information such as age, sex, smoking, diabetes and obesity. The risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for CABG was 3 per 10,000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients with a mean of 59 days at risk). Risk factors associated with an increased risk, and included in the basic risk equation, were age, diabetes, heart failure, previous myocardial infarction and involvement of the left main coronary artery or three-vessel disease. The optimal strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness considerations was a prioritisation strategy employing biomarker information. Evaluating shorter maximum waiting times did not alter the conclusion that a prioritisation strategy with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was cost-effective. These results were robust to most alternative scenarios investigating other sources of uncertainty. However, the cost-effectiveness of the strategy using a risk score with both eGFR and C-reactive protein (CRP) was potentially sensitive to the cost of the CRP test itself (assumed to be 6 pounds in the base-case scenario).CONCLUSIONS: Formally employing more information in the prioritisation of patients awaiting CABG appears to be a cost-effective approach and may result in improved health outcomes. The most robust results relate to a strategy employing a risk score using conventional clinical information together with a single biomarker (eGFR). The additional prognostic information conferred by collecting the more costly novel circulating biomarker CRP, singly or in combination with other biomarkers, in terms of waiting list prioritisation is unlikely to be cost-effective.
  •  
6.
  • McNamara, R. L., et al. (författare)
  • International comparisons of the management of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States: The MINAP/NICOR, SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA, and ACTION Registry-GWTG/NCDR registries
  • 2014
  • Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 175:2, s. 240-247
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objectives: To compare management of patients with acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in three developed countries with national ongoing registries. Background: Results from clinical trials suggest significant variation in care across the world. However, international comparisons in "real world" registries are limited. Methods: We compared the use of in-hospital procedures and discharge medications for patients admitted with NSTEMI from 2007 to 2010 using the unselective MINAP/NICOR [England and Wales (UK); n = 137,009], the unselective SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA (Sweden; n = 45,069), and the selective ACTION Registry-GWTG/NCDR [United States (US); n = 147,438] clinical registries. Results: Patients enrolled among the three registries were generally similar except those in the US who were younger but had higher rates of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, prior heart failure, and prior MI than in Sweden or in UK. Angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were performed more often in the US (76% and 44%) and Sweden (65% and 42%) relative to the UK (32% and 22%). Discharge betablockers were also prescribed more often in the US (89%) and Sweden (89%) than in the UK (76%). In contrast, discharge statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), and dual antiplatelet agents (among those not receiving PCI) were higher in the UK (92%, 79%, and 71%) than in the US (85%, 65%, 41%) and Sweden (81%, 69%, and 49%). Conclusions: The care for patients with NSTEMI differed substantially among the three countries. These differences in care among countries provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research as well as identify opportunities for global quality improvement. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-6 av 6

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy