| 1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Thoma, B, et al.
(författare)
-
An international, interprofessional investigation of the self-reported podcast listening habits of emergency clinicians: A METRIQ Study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: CJEM. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1481-8043 .- 1481-8035. ; 22:1, s. 112-117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectivesPodcasts are increasingly being used for medical education. A deeper understanding of usage patterns would inform both producers and researchers of medical podcasts. We aimed to determine how and why podcasts are used by emergency medicine and critical care clinicians.MethodsAn international interprofessional sample (medical students, residents, physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and paramedics) was recruited through direct contact and a multimodal social media (Twitter and Facebook) campaign. Each participant completed a survey outlining how and why they utilize medical podcasts. Recruitment materials included an infographic and study website.Results390 participants from 33 countries and 4 professions (medicine, nursing, paramedicine, physician assistant) completed the survey. Participants most frequently listened to medical podcasts to review new literature (75.8%), learn core material (75.1%), and refresh memory (71.8%). The majority (62.6%) were aware of the ability to listen at increased speeds, but most (76.9%) listened at 1.0 x (normal) speed. All but 25 (6.4%) participants concurrently performed other tasks while listening. Driving (72.3%), exercising (39.7%), and completing chores (39.2%) were the most common. A minority of participants used active learning techniques such as pausing, rewinding, and replaying segments of the podcast. Very few listened to podcasts multiple times.ConclusionsAn international cohort of emergency clinicians use medical podcasts predominantly for learning. Their listening habits (rarely employing active learning strategies and frequently performing concurrent tasks) may not support this goal. Further exploration of the impact of these activities on learning from podcasts is warranted.
|
|
| 7. |
- van de Vegte, Yordi, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic insights into resting heart rate and its role in cardiovascular disease
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The genetics and clinical consequences of resting heart rate (RHR) remain incompletely understood. Here, the authors discover new genetic variants associated with RHR and find that higher genetically predicted RHR decreases risk of atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke. Resting heart rate is associated with cardiovascular diseases and mortality in observational and Mendelian randomization studies. The aims of this study are to extend the number of resting heart rate associated genetic variants and to obtain further insights in resting heart rate biology and its clinical consequences. A genome-wide meta-analysis of 100 studies in up to 835,465 individuals reveals 493 independent genetic variants in 352 loci, including 68 genetic variants outside previously identified resting heart rate associated loci. We prioritize 670 genes and in silico annotations point to their enrichment in cardiomyocytes and provide insights in their ECG signature. Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses indicate that higher genetically predicted resting heart rate increases risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, but decreases risk of developing atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, and cardio-embolic stroke. We do not find evidence for a linear or non-linear genetic association between resting heart rate and all-cause mortality in contrast to our previous Mendelian randomization study. Systematic alteration of key differences between the current and previous Mendelian randomization study indicates that the most likely cause of the discrepancy between these studies arises from false positive findings in previous one-sample MR analyses caused by weak-instrument bias at lower P-value thresholds. The results extend our understanding of resting heart rate biology and give additional insights in its role in cardiovascular disease development.
|
|
| 8. |
- Ades, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Global Climate : in State of the climate in 2019
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society - (BAMS). - : American Meteorological Society. - 0003-0007 .- 1520-0477. ; 101:8, s. S17-S127
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 9. |
- Ades, M., et al.
(författare)
-
GLOBAL CLIMATE
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY. - 0003-0007 .- 1520-0477. ; 101:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 10. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
