Departments View all

400
Total Impact Points
276
Members
3,815
Total Impact Points
142
Members
480
Total Impact Points
96
Members

Recent Publications View all

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. Methods: We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). Results: Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. Conclusion: There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015 · The Journal of Rheumatology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ward and Banissy provide an excellent overview of the state of mirror-touch research in order to advance this field. They present a comparison of two prominent theoretical approaches for understanding mirror-touch phenomena. According to the threshold theory, the phenomena arise as a result of a hyperactive mirror neuron system. According to the Self-Other Theory, they are due to disturbances in the ability to distinguish the self from others. Here, we explore how these two theories can inform theories of synesthesia more generally. We conclude that both theories are not suited as general models of synesthesia.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015 · Cognitive neuroscience
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. Methods. We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratifi ed by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defi ned as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defi ned as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. Findings. We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74–0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73–0·96; p=0·0092). The diff erence was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49–0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53–0·99; p=0·045). Interpretation. In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015 · The Lancet

Information

  • Address
    Erlachstr. 9a, Trakt 3, 3012, Bern, Switzerland
  • Website
    http://mri.scnatweb.ch/
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.

3186 Members View all

View all

Top publications last week by reads

 
Environmental Research Letters 01/2016; 11(2). DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/024001
468 Reads
 
Plant and Soil 01/2016; DOI:10.1007/s11104-016-2798-0
162 Reads

Top Collaborating Institutions

Collaborations

This map visualizes which other institutions researchers from Universität Bern have collaborated with.

Rg score distribution

See how the RG Scores of researchers from Universität Bern are distributed.