scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Flinders University

EducationAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
About: Flinders University is a education organization based out in Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 12033 authors who have published 32831 publications receiving 973172 citations. The organization is also known as: Flinders University of South Australia.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This systematic review examined studies that have investigated sustaining hope during prognostic and end‐of‐life issues discussions with terminally ill patients and their families from 1985 to June 2006 to identify 27 studies.
Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to examine studies that have investigated sustaining hope during prognostic and end-of-life issues discussions with terminally ill patients and their families. A comprehensive search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and handsearching, from 1985 to June 2006, identified 27 studies. This review suggests that the issues surrounding hope in this context are complex. Despite the lack of unanimity among researchers regarding the definition of hope, findings suggest that balancing hope with honesty is an important skill for health professionals (HPs). Many patients seem to be able to maintain a sense of hope despite acknowledging the terminal nature of their illness. Patients and caregivers mostly preferred honest and accurate information, provided with empathy and understanding. Many different sources of hope were identified in this context in broad aspects of life, not just the medical situation. HPs need to recognize this spectrum of hope and appreciate that patients may simultaneously hope for 'cure' while acknowledging the terminal nature of their illness. HPs may help patients to cope with their terminal prognosis by exploring and fostering realistic forms of hope that are meaningful for the particular patient and their family.

298 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It was confirmed that carriers of an MMR gene mutation were at increased risk of a wide variety of cancers, including some cancers not previously recognized as being a result of MMR mutations, and found no evidence of an increase risk of cancer for their noncarrier relatives.
Abstract: Purpose To determine whether cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation are increased above the risks of the general population. Patients and Methods We prospectively followed a cohort of 446 unaffected carriers of an MMR gene mutation (MLH1, n 161; MSH2 ,n 222; MSH6 ,n 47; and PMS2 ,n 16) and 1,029 their unaffected relatives who did not carry a mutation every 5 years at recruitment centers of the Colon Cancer Family Registry. For comparison of cancer risk with the general population, we estimated country-, age-, and sex-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancer for carriers and noncarriers. Results Over a median follow-up of 5 years, mutation carriers had an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC; SIR, 20.48; 95% CI, 11.71 to 33.27; P .001), endometrial cancer (SIR, 30.62; 95% CI, 11.24 to 66.64; P .001), ovarian cancer (SIR, 18.81; 95% CI, 3.88 to 54.95; P .001), renal cancer (SIR, 11.22; 95% CI, 2.31 to 32.79; P .001), pancreatic cancer (SIR, 10.68; 95% CI, 2.68 to 47.70; P .001), gastric cancer (SIR, 9.78; 95% CI, 1.18 to 35.30; P .009), urinary bladder cancer (SIR, 9.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 34.37; P .009), and female breast cancer (SIR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.59 to 8.13; P .001). We found no evidence of their noncarrier relatives having an increased risk of any cancer, including CRC (SIR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.33 to 2.39; P .97). Conclusion We confirmed that carriers of an MMR gene mutation were at increased risk of a wide variety of cancers, including some cancers not previously recognized as being a result of MMR mutations, and found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer for their noncarrier relatives. J Clin Oncol 30:958-964. © 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

298 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Current methods of membrane protein solubilization and stabilization and potential future applications of the methodology are discussed for structural and functional studies on membrane proteins in a near-native environment and for characterizing protein–lipid and protein–protein interactions.
Abstract: A new and promising tool in membrane research is the detergent-free solubilization of membrane proteins by styrene-maleic acid copolymers (SMAs). These amphipathic molecules are able to solubilize lipid bilayers in the form of nanodiscs that are bounded by the polymer. Thus, membrane proteins can be directly extracted from cells in a water-soluble form while conserving a patch of native membrane around them. In this review article, we briefly discuss current methods of membrane protein solubilization and stabilization. We then zoom in on SMAs, describe their physico-chemical properties, and discuss their membrane-solubilizing effect. This is followed by an overview of studies in which SMA has been used to isolate and investigate membrane proteins. Finally, potential future applications of the methodology are discussed for structural and functional studies on membrane proteins in a near-native environment and for characterizing protein-lipid and protein-protein interactions.

297 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A porous silicon membrane may have value as a biomaterial that can support the delivery of cells to the ocular surface and improve existing therapeutic options in patients with corneal epithelial stem cell dysfunction and ocularsurface disease.

296 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel Lakens1, Federico Adolfi2, Federico Adolfi3, Casper J. Albers4, Farid Anvari5, Matthew A. J. Apps6, Shlomo Argamon7, Thom Baguley8, Raymond Becker9, Stephen D. Benning10, Daniel E. Bradford11, Erin Michelle Buchanan12, Aaron R. Caldwell13, Ben Van Calster14, Ben Van Calster15, Rickard Carlsson16, Sau-Chin Chen17, Bryan Chung18, Lincoln J. Colling19, Gary S. Collins6, Zander Crook20, Emily S. Cross21, Emily S. Cross22, Sameera Daniels, Henrik Danielsson23, Lisa M. DeBruine21, Daniel J. Dunleavy24, Brian D. Earp25, Michele I. Feist26, Jason D. Ferrell27, Jason D. Ferrell28, James G. Field29, Nicholas W. Fox30, Amanda Friesen31, Caio Gomes, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez32, James A. Grange33, Andrew P. Grieve, Robert Guggenberger34, James T. Grist19, Anne-Laura van Harmelen19, Fred Hasselman35, Kevin D. Hochard36, Mark R. Hoffarth37, Nicholas P. Holmes38, Michael Ingre39, Peder M. Isager23, Hanna K. Isotalus40, Christer Johansson41, Konrad Juszczyk42, David A. Kenny43, Ahmed A. Khalil44, Ahmed A. Khalil45, Ahmed A. Khalil2, Barbara Konat42, Junpeng Lao46, Erik Gahner Larsen47, Gerine M.A. Lodder4, Jiří Lukavský48, Christopher R. Madan38, David Manheim49, Stephen R. Martin50, Andrea E. Martin2, Andrea E. Martin20, Deborah G. Mayo51, Randy J. McCarthy52, Kevin McConway53, Colin McFarland, Amanda Q. X. Nio54, Gustav Nilsonne55, Gustav Nilsonne56, Gustav Nilsonne57, Cilene Lino de Oliveira58, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry15, Sam Parsons6, Gerit Pfuhl59, Kimberly A. Quinn60, John J. Sakon37, S. Adil Saribay61, Iris K. Schneider62, Manojkumar Selvaraju63, Zsuzsika Sjoerds14, Samuel G. Smith64, Tim Smits15, Jeffrey R. Spies65, Jeffrey R. Spies66, Vishnu Sreekumar67, Crystal N. Steltenpohl68, Neil Stenhouse11, Wojciech Świątkowski, Miguel A. Vadillo69, Marcel A.L.M. van Assen70, Marcel A.L.M. van Assen71, Matt N. Williams72, Samantha E Williams73, Donald R. Williams74, Tal Yarkoni27, Ignazio Ziano75, Rolf A. Zwaan39 
Eindhoven University of Technology1, Max Planck Society2, National Scientific and Technical Research Council3, University of Groningen4, Flinders University5, University of Oxford6, Illinois Institute of Technology7, Nottingham Trent University8, Bielefeld University9, University of Nevada, Las Vegas10, University of Wisconsin-Madison11, Missouri State University12, University of Arkansas13, Leiden University14, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven15, Linnaeus University16, Tzu Chi University17, University of British Columbia18, University of Cambridge19, University of Edinburgh20, University of Glasgow21, Bangor University22, Linköping University23, Florida State University24, Yale University25, University of Louisiana at Lafayette26, University of Texas at Austin27, St. Edward's University28, West Virginia University29, Rutgers University30, Indiana University31, RWTH Aachen University32, Keele University33, University of Tübingen34, Radboud University Nijmegen35, University of Chester36, New York University37, University of Nottingham38, Erasmus University Rotterdam39, University of Bristol40, Sahlgrenska University Hospital41, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań42, University of Connecticut43, Humboldt University of Berlin44, Charité45, University of Fribourg46, University of Kent47, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic48, RAND Corporation49, Baylor University50, Virginia Tech51, Northern Illinois University52, Open University53, King's College London54, Stockholm University55, Karolinska Institutet56, Stanford University57, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina58, University of Tromsø59, DePaul University60, Boğaziçi University61, University of Cologne62, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology63, University of Leeds64, University of Virginia65, Center for Open Science66, National Institutes of Health67, University of Southern Indiana68, Autonomous University of Madrid69, Tilburg University70, Utrecht University71, Massey University72, Saint Louis University73, University of California, Davis74, Ghent University75
TL;DR: In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, it is proposed that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.
Abstract: In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.

296 citations


Authors

Showing all 12221 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Matthew Jones125116196909
Robert Edwards12177574552
Justin C. McArthur11343347346
Peter Somogyi11223242450
Glenda M. Halliday11167653684
Jonathan C. Craig10887259401
Bruce Neal10856187213
Alan Cooper10874645772
Robert J. Norman10375545147
John B. Furness10359737668
Richard J. Miller10341935669
Michael J. Brownstein10227447929
Craig S. Anderson10165049331
John Chalmers9983155005
Kevin D. Hyde99138246113
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Queensland
155.7K papers, 5.7M citations

96% related

University of Melbourne
174.8K papers, 6.3M citations

95% related

University of Sydney
187.3K papers, 6.1M citations

95% related

University of New South Wales
153.6K papers, 4.8M citations

94% related

Australian National University
109.2K papers, 4.3M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202368
2022336
20212,761
20202,320
20191,943
20181,806