Search

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of combined application of human amniotic membrane wrapping and hyaluronic acid injection on peripheral nerve scarring in an adult rat model. After circumferential epineurectomies of right sciatic nerves were performed in each of 72 rats, nerves were randomly divided into three groups: (1) nothing was done additional to epineurectomy; (2) the epineurectomized segment was wrapped with human amniotic membrane; and (3) the epineurectomized segment was wrapped with human amniotic membrane and hyaluronic acid was injected inside. The extent of adhesions and perineurial scar thickness was macroscopically and histologically evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. The least adhesion and perineurial scar tissue were observed in nerves treated with human amniotic membrane wrapping and hyaluronic acid injection. This combination appears to be safe and effective in preventing perineurial scar formation after peripheral nerve surgery in rats.

Some clinical trials perform repeated measurement over time and estimate clinically relevant change in an instrument's score with global ratings of perceived change or so-called transition questions. The conceptual and methodological difficulties in estimating the magnitude of clinically relevant change over time in health-related functional status (HRFS) are discussed. This paper investigates the concordance between the amount of serially assessed change with effect size estimates (the researcher's perspective) and global ratings of perceived change (the patient's perspective). A total of 217 patients who were scheduled for diagnostic examination were included, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, extended with MOS-20 items, was assessed before and after medical intervention (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting or pharmaco-therapy). Global questions were applied to assess perceived change over time for every item from domains of physical and emotional functioning and used as the external criterion of relevant change in the analysis of items. Global questions corresponding with overall change in these domains were used in the comparison of change in physical and emotional functioning scales. Two effect size indices were used: (i) ES (mean change/SDpooled) and (ii) ES (mean change/SDchange). A method is described to calculate a value indicating the extent of discordance between the researcher's interpretation of magnitude of change and the external criterion (the patient's perspective). Findings suggest that effect size (ES) (mean change/SDpooled) was in keeping with the magnitude of change indicated by patients' judgements, or their category of subjective meaning, for all scales. Furthermore, in cases in which the magnitude of change estimated with the SRM (mean change/SDchange) was not confirmed empirically by the external criterion ratings, the discordance could be interpreted as a trivial discordance.

The credibility and creativity of an author may be gauged by the number of scientific papers he or she has published, as well as the frequency of citations of a particular paper reflecting the impact of the data on the area of practice. The object of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top 100 cited papers in orthopaedic surgery. The database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945 to 2008) was used. A total of 1490 papers were cited more than 100 times, with the top 100 being subjected to further analysis. The majority originated in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. The top 100 papers were published in seven specific orthopaedic journals. Analysis of the most-cited orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualitites, characteristics and clinical innovations required for a paper to attain ‘classic’ status.

Some clinical trials perform repeated measurement over time and estimate clinically relevant change in an instrument's score with global ratings of perceived change or so-called transition questions. The conceptual and methodological difficulties in estimating the magnitude of clinically relevant change over time in health-related functional status (HRFS) are discussed. This paper investigates the concordance between the amount of serially assessed change with effect size estimates (the researcher's perspective) and global ratings of perceived change (the patient's perspective). A total of 217 patients who were scheduled for diagnostic examination were included, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, extended with MOS-20 items, was assessed before and after medical intervention (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting or pharmaco-therapy). Global questions were applied to assess perceived change over time for every item from domains of physical and emotional functioning and used as the external criterion of relevant change in the analysis of items. Global questions corresponding with overall change in these domains were used in the comparison of change in physical and emotional functioning scales. Two effect size indices were used: (i) ES (mean change/SDpooled) and (ii) ES (mean change/SDchange). A method is described to calculate a value indicating the extent of discordance between the researcher's interpretation of magnitude of change and the external criterion (the patient's perspective). Findings suggest that effect size (ES) (mean change/SDpooled) was in keeping with the magnitude of change indicated by patients' judgements, or their category of subjective meaning, for all scales. Furthermore, in cases in which the magnitude of change estimated with the SRM (mean change/SDchange) was not confirmed empirically by the external criterion ratings, the discordance could be interpreted as a trivial discordance.