scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

City University London

EducationLondon, United Kingdom
About: City University London is a education organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 5735 authors who have published 17285 publications receiving 453290 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
08 Apr 1995-BMJ
TL;DR: The Lancet and BMJ are both examined carefully by broadsheet journalists in Britain each week, and stories focused on serious diseases, topical health problems, and new treatments rather than social problems.
Abstract: Newspapers are important sources of information about medical advances for many lay people and can influence those working in the health service. Medical journalists on newspapers routinely use general medical journals to obtain information on research. The Lancet and BMJ are both examined carefully by broadsheet journalists in Britain each week. These papers published an average of 1.25 stories from these journals every Friday. The stories focused on serious diseases, topical health problems, and new treatments rather than social problems. The newspaper stories were based on the full research article and not the journals' press releases, although the press releases were valued as early information. Journalists relied heavily on the peer review processes of the journals in ensuring accuracy.

156 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Use of an oxygen-saturation target range of 85 to 89% versus 91 to 95% resulted in nonsignificantly higher rates of death or disability at 2 years in each trial but in significantly increased risks of this combined outcome and of death alone in post hoc combined analyses.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The safest ranges of oxygen saturation in preterm infants have been the subject of debate. METHODS: In two trials, conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom, infants born before 28 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to either a lower (85 to 89%) or a higher (91 to 95%) oxygen-saturation range. During enrollment, the oximeters were revised to correct a calibration-algorithm artifact. The primary outcome was death or disability at a corrected gestational age of 2 years; this outcome was evaluated among infants whose oxygen saturation was measured with any study oximeter in the Australian trial and those whose oxygen saturation was measured with a revised oximeter in the U.K. trial. RESULTS: After 1135 infants in Australia and 973 infants in the United Kingdom had been enrolled in the trial, an interim analysis showed increased mortality at a corrected gestational age of 36 weeks, and enrollment was stopped. Death or disability in the Australian trial (with all oximeters included) occurred in 247 of 549 infants (45.0%) in the lower-target group versus 217 of 545 infants (39.8%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.27; P=0.10); death or disability in the U.K. trial (with only revised oximeters included) occurred in 185 of 366 infants (50.5%) in the lower-target group versus 164 of 357 infants (45.9%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.24; P=0.15). In post hoc combined, unadjusted analyses that included all oximeters, death or disability occurred in 492 of 1022 infants (48.1%) in the lower-target group versus 437 of 1013 infants (43.1%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23; P=0.02), and death occurred in 222 of 1045 infants (21.2%) in the lower-target group versus 185 of 1045 infants (17.7%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.43; P=0.04). In the group in which revised oximeters were used, death or disability occurred in 287 of 580 infants (49.5%) in the lower-target group versus 248 of 563 infants (44.0%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.27; P=0.07), and death occurred in 144 of 587 infants (24.5%) versus 99 of 586 infants (16.9%) (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.82; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an oxygen-saturation target range of 85 to 89% versus 91 to 95% resulted in nonsignificantly higher rates of death or disability at 2 years in each trial but in significantly increased risks of this combined outcome and of death alone in post hoc combined analyses. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST-II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12605000055606.).

156 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This model is mostly influential during the spreading phase for the cases of low The authors number impacts (They<˜80) since for high impact velocities, inertia dominates significantly over capillary forces in the initial phase of spreading.

156 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This tutorial surveys the modeling issues here, with an emphasis upon the impact these have upon the problem of assessing the reliability of fault-tolerant systems.
Abstract: Design diversity has been used for many years now as a means of achieving a degree of fault tolerance in software-based systems. While there is clear evidence that the approach can be expected to deliver some increase in reliability compared to a single version, there is no agreement about the extent of this. More importantly, it remains difficult to evaluate exactly how reliable a particular diverse fault-tolerant system is. This difficulty arises because assumptions of independence of failures between different versions have been shown to be untenable: assessment of the actual level of dependence present is therefore needed, and this is difficult. In this tutorial, we survey the modeling issues here, with an emphasis upon the impact these have upon the problem of assessing the reliability of fault-tolerant systems. The intended audience is one of designers, assessors, and project managers with only a basic knowledge of probabilities, as well as reliability experts without detailed knowledge of software, who seek an introduction to the probabilistic issues in decisions about design diversity.

155 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
03 Jan 2014-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention, and reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen.
Abstract: Objectives: Study objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing. Method: A three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors’ self-efficacy were established. Results: 4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p,0.001), surgical (p =,0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather than medical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p,0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p,0.001) and the months December and June (p,0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions Objectives: Study objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing. Method: A three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors’ self-efficacy were established. Results: 4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p,0.001), surgical (p =,0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather than medical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p,0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p,0.001) and the months December and June (p,0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen. Conclusions: Prescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these. were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen. Conclusions: Prescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

155 citations


Authors

Showing all 5822 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Andrew M. Jones10376437253
F. Rauscher10060536066
Thorsten Beck9937362708
Richard J. K. Taylor91154343893
Christopher N. Bowman9063938457
G. David Batty8845123826
Xin Zhang87171440102
Richard J. Cook8457128943
Hugh Willmott8231026758
Scott Reeves8244127470
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore8121129660
Mats Alvesson7826738248
W. John Edmunds7525224018
Sheng Chen7168827847
Christopher J. Taylor7141530948
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Manchester
168K papers, 6.4M citations

93% related

University of Sheffield
102.9K papers, 3.9M citations

92% related

University of Southampton
99.4K papers, 3.4M citations

92% related

University of Nottingham
119.6K papers, 4.2M citations

92% related

University of Birmingham
115.3K papers, 4.3M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202330
2022188
20211,030
20201,011
2019939
2018879