Institution
McMaster University
Education•Hamilton, Ontario, Canada•
About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.
Abstract: Context.—Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions
by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should
include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported
so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them.Objective.—To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published
in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE.Data Sources.—The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted
to 1995.Study Selection.—All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews
published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995.Data Extraction.—Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and
exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality
assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997
was evaluated.Results.—Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P <.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however,
included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions
(0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences
in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates.
By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews
listed in MEDLINE.Conclusions.—Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are
more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published
in paper-based journals.
524 citations
••
02 Jul 2007TL;DR: The Gaussian sum-quadrature Kalman filter (GS-QKF) as mentioned in this paper approximates the predicted and posterior densities as a finite number of weighted sums of Gaussian densities.
Abstract: In this paper, a new version of the quadrature Kalman filter (QKF) is developed theoretically and tested experimentally. We first derive the new QKF for nonlinear systems with additive Gaussian noise by linearizing the process and measurement functions using statistical linear regression (SLR) through a set of Gauss-Hermite quadrature points that parameterize the Gaussian density. Moreover, we discuss how the new QKF can be extended and modified to take into account specific details of a given application. We then go on to extend the use of the new QKF to discrete-time, nonlinear systems with additive, possibly non-Gaussian noise. A bank of parallel QKFs, called the Gaussian sum-quadrature Kalman filter (GS-QKF) approximates the predicted and posterior densities as a finite number of weighted sums of Gaussian densities. The weights are obtained from the residuals of the QKFs. Three different Gaussian mixture reduction techniques are presented to alleviate the growing number of the Gaussian sum terms inherent to the GS-QKFs. Simulation results exhibit a significant improvement of the GS-QKFs over other nonlinear filtering approaches, namely, the basic bootstrap (particle) filters and Gaussian-sum extended Kalman filters, to solve nonlinear non- Gaussian filtering problems.
523 citations
••
523 citations
••
TL;DR: Women with 0 or 1 risk factor may safely discontinue oral anticoagulant therapy after 6 months of therapy following a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism, and this criterion does not apply to men.
Abstract: Background: Whether to continue oral anticoagulant therapy beyond 6 months after an “unprovoked” venous thromboembolism is controversial. We sought to determine clinical predictors to identify patients who are at low risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism who could safely discontinue oral anticoagulants. Methods: In a multicentre prospective cohort study, 646 participants with a first, unprovoked major venous thromboembolism were enrolled over a 4-year period. Of these, 600 participants completed a mean 18-month follow-up in September 2006. We collected data for 69 potential predictors of recurrent venous thromboembolism while patients were taking oral anticoagulation therapy (5–7 months after initiation). During follow-up after discontinuing oral anticoagulation therapy, all episodes of suspected recurrent venous thromboembolism were independently adjudicated. We performed a multivariable analysis of predictor variables ( p Results: We identified 91 confirmed episodes of recurrent venous thromboembolism during follow-up after discontinuing oral anticoagulation therapy (annual risk 9.3%, 95% CI 7.7%–11.3%). Men had a 13.7% (95% CI 10.8%–17.0%) annual risk. There was no combination of clinical predictors that satisfied our criteria for identifying a low-risk subgroup of men. Fifty-two percent of women had 0 or 1 of the following characteristics: hyperpigmentation, edema or redness of either leg; D-dimer ≥ 250 μg/L while taking warfarin; body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ; or age ≥ 65 years. These women had an annual risk of 1.6% (95% CI 0.3%–4.6%). Women who had 2 or more of these findings had an annual risk of 14.1% (95% CI 10.9%–17.3%). Interpretation: Women with 0 or 1 risk factor may safely discontinue oral anticoagulant therapy after 6 months of therapy following a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism. This criterion does not apply to men. (http://Clinicaltrials.gov trial register number NCT00261014)
522 citations
••
TL;DR: Groups of aphasic patients and their spouses generated a series of communication situations that they felt were important in their day-to-day life and these data were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) as a measure of change in functional communication ability.
Abstract: Groups of aphasic patients and their spouses generated a series of communication situations that they felt were important in their day-to-day life. Using criteria to ensure that the situations were...
522 citations
Authors
Showing all 41721 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Salim Yusuf | 231 | 1439 | 252912 |
Gordon H. Guyatt | 231 | 1620 | 228631 |
Simon D. M. White | 189 | 795 | 231645 |
George Efstathiou | 187 | 637 | 156228 |
Stuart H. Orkin | 186 | 715 | 112182 |
Terrie E. Moffitt | 182 | 594 | 150609 |
John J.V. McMurray | 178 | 1389 | 184502 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
Deborah J. Cook | 173 | 907 | 148928 |
Andrew P. McMahon | 162 | 415 | 90650 |
Jack Hirsh | 146 | 734 | 86332 |
Holger J. Schünemann | 141 | 810 | 113169 |
John A. Peacock | 140 | 565 | 125416 |
David Price | 138 | 1687 | 93535 |
Graeme J. Hankey | 137 | 844 | 143373 |