scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Sao Paulo State University

EducationSão Paulo, Brazil
About: Sao Paulo State University is a education organization based out in São Paulo, Brazil. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 55715 authors who have published 100436 publications receiving 1375332 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The pre-print version of the Published Article can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 Springer Verlag as discussed by the authors, which can be viewed as a preprint of the published article.
Abstract: This is the pre-print version of the Published Article, which can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 Springer Verlag

717 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Some differences are identified compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010. The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines. We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

699 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Nasim Azani1, Marielle Babineau2, C. Donovan Bailey3, Hannah Banks4, Ariane R. Barbosa5, Rafael Barbosa Pinto6, James S. Boatwright7, Leonardo Maurici Borges8, Gillian K. Brown9, Anne Bruneau2, Elisa Silva Candido6, Domingos Cardoso10, Kuo-Fang Chung11, Ruth Clark4, Adilva de Souza Conceição, Michael D. Crisp12, Paloma Cubas13, Alfonso Delgado-Salinas14, Kyle G. Dexter, Jeff J. Doyle15, Jérôme Duminil16, Ashley N. Egan17, Manuel de la Estrella4, Marcus J. Falcao, Dmitry A. Filatov18, Ana Paula Fortuna-Perez19, Renee Hersilia Fortunato20, Edeline Gagnon2, Peter Gasson4, Juliana Gastaldello Rando21, Ana Maria Goulart de Azevedo Tozzi6, Bee F. Gunn12, David Harris22, Elspeth Haston22, Julie A. Hawkins23, Patrick S. Herendeen, Colin E. Hughes24, João Ricardo Vieira Iganci25, Firouzeh Javadi26, Sheku Alfred Kanu27, Shahrokh Kazempour-Osaloo28, Geoffrey C. Kite4, Bente B. Klitgaard4, Fabio J. Kochanovski6, Erik J. M. Koenen24, Lynsey Kovar3, Matt Lavin29, M. Marianne le Roux30, Gwilym P. Lewis4, Haroldo Cavalcante de Lima, Maria Cristina Lopez-Roberts5, Barbara A. Mackinder22, Vitor Hugo Maia31, Valéry Malécot32, Vidal de Freitas Mansano, Brigitte Marazzi, Sawai Mattapha23, Joseph T. Miller33, Chika Mitsuyuki26, Tania M. Moura34, Daniel J. Murphy4, Madhugiri Nageswara-Rao3, Bruno Nevado18, Danilo M. Neves4, Dario I. Ojeda16, R. Toby Pennington22, Darirn E. Prado35, Gerhard Prenner4, Luciano Paganucci de Queiroz5, Gustavo Ramos10, Fabiana L. Ranzato Filardi, Pétala Gomes Ribeiro5, María de Lourdes Rico-Arce4, Michael J. Sanderson36, Juliana Santos-Silva, Wallace M. B. São-Mateus37, Marcos J. S. Silva38, Marcelo F. Simon39, Carole Sinou2, Cristiane Snak5, Élvia R. de Souza, Janet I. Sprent40, Kelly P. Steele41, Julia E. Steier42, Royce Steeves2, Charles H. Stirton43, Shuichiro Tagane26, Benjamin M. Torke44, Hironori Toyama26, Daiane Trabuco da Cruz5, Mohammad Vatanparast17, Jan J. Wieringa45, Michael Wink46, Martin F. Wojciechowski42, Tetsukazu Yahara26, Ting-Shuang Yi47, Erin Zimmerman2 
01 Feb 2017-Taxon
TL;DR: The classification of the legume family proposed here addresses the long-known non-monophyly of the traditionally recognised subfamily Caesalpinioideae, by recognising six robustly supported monophyletic subfamilies and reflects the phylogenetic structure that is consistently resolved.
Abstract: The classification of the legume family proposed here addresses the long-known non-monophyly of the traditionally recognised subfamily Caesalpinioideae, by recognising six robustly supported monophyletic subfamilies. This new classification uses as its framework the most comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of legumes to date, based on plastid matK gene sequences, and including near-complete sampling of genera (698 of the currently recognised 765 genera) and ca. 20% (3696) of known species. The matK gene region has been the most widely sequenced across the legumes, and in most legume lineages, this gene region is sufficiently variable to yield well-supported clades. This analysis resolves the same major clades as in other phylogenies of whole plastid and nuclear gene sets (with much sparser taxon sampling). Our analysis improves upon previous studies that have used large phylogenies of the Leguminosae for addressing evolutionary questions, because it maximises generic sampling and provides a phylogenetic tree that is based on a fully curated set of sequences that are vouchered and taxonomically validated. The phylogenetic trees obtained and the underlying data are available to browse and download, facilitating subsequent analyses that require evolutionary trees. Here we propose a new community-endorsed classification of the family that reflects the phylogenetic structure that is consistently resolved and recognises six subfamilies in Leguminosae: a recircumscribed Caesalpinioideae DC., Cercidoideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), Detarioideae Burmeist., Dialioideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), Duparquetioideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), and Papilionoideae DC. The traditionally recognised subfamily Mimosoideae is a distinct clade nested within the recircumscribed Caesalpinioideae and is referred to informally as the mimosoid clade pending a forthcoming formal tribal and/or cladebased classification of the new Caesalpinioideae. We provide a key for subfamily identification, descriptions with diagnostic charactertistics for the subfamilies, figures illustrating their floral and fruit diversity, and lists of genera by subfamily. This new classification of Leguminosae represents a consensus view of the international legume systematics community; it invokes both compromise and practicality of use.

697 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the surface modification of cellulose fibers by various methods is reviewed and the processing methods, properties, and various applications of nanocellulose and cellulosic composites are also discussed.
Abstract: Cellulose macro- and nanofibers have gained increasing attention due to the high strength and stiffness, biodegradability and renewability, and their production and application in development of composites. Application of cellulose nanofibers for the development of composites is a relatively new research area. Cellulose macro- and nanofibers can be used as reinforcement in composite materials because of enhanced mechanical, thermal, and biodegradation properties of composites. Cellulose fibers are hydrophilic in nature, so it becomes necessary to increase their surface roughness for the development of composites with enhanced properties. In the present paper, we have reviewed the surface modification of cellulose fibers by various methods. Processing methods, properties, and various applications of nanocellulose and cellulosic composites are also discussed in this paper.

685 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A better understanding of the relative roles of species sorting, mass effects and dispersal limitation in affecting aquatic metacommunities requires the following: characterising dispersal rates more directly or adopting better proxies than have been used previously; considering the nature of aquatic networks; and combining correlative and experimental approaches.
Abstract: Summary Metacommunity ecology addresses the situation where sets of local communities are connected by the dispersal of a number of potentially interacting species. Aquatic systems (e.g. lentic versus lotic versus marine) differ from each other in connectivity and environmental heterogeneity, suggesting that metacommunity organisation also differs between major aquatic systems. Here, we review findings from observational field studies on metacommunity organisation in aquatic systems. Species sorting (i.e. species are ‘filtered’ by environmental factors and occur only at environmentally suitable sites) prevails in aquatic systems, particularly in streams and lakes, but the degree to which dispersal limitation interacts with such environmental control varies among different systems and spatial scales. For example, mainstem rivers and marine coastal systems may be strongly affected by ‘mass effects’ (i.e. where high dispersal rates homogenise communities to some degree at neighbouring localities, irrespective of their abiotic and biotic environmental conditions), whereas isolated lakes and ponds may be structured by dispersal limitation (i.e. some species do not occur at otherwise-suitable localities simply because sites with potential colonists are too far away). Flow directionality in running waters also differs from water movements in other systems, and this difference may also have effects on the role of dispersal in different aquatic systems. Dispersal limitation typically increases with increasing spatial distance between sites, mass effects potentially increase in importance with decreasing distance between sites, and the dispersal ability of organisms may determine the spatial extents at which species sorting and dispersal processes are most important. A better understanding of the relative roles of species sorting, mass effects and dispersal limitation in affecting aquatic metacommunities requires the following: (i) characterising dispersal rates more directly or adopting better proxies than have been used previously; (ii) considering the nature of aquatic networks; (iii) combining correlative and experimental approaches; (iv) exploring temporal aspects of metacommunity organisation and (v) applying past approaches and statistical methods innovatively for increasing our understanding of metacommunity organisation.

664 citations


Authors

Showing all 56201 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Russel J. Reiter1691646121010
Tobin J. Marks1591621111604
Joseph T. Hupp14173182647
Luca Lista1402044110645
Sergio F Novaes1381559101941
Wagner Carvalho135139594184
Alberto Santoro1351576100629
Andre Sznajder134146498242
Luiz Mundim133141389792
Eduardo De Moraes Gregores133145492464
Helio Nogima132127484368
Pedro G Mercadante129133186378
D. De Jesus Damiao128116282707
Sandra S. Padula128113177174
Sudha Ahuja127101675739
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
75.6K papers, 1.2M citations

96% related

University of São Paulo
272.3K papers, 5.1M citations

96% related

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
89.4K papers, 1.4M citations

96% related

Federal University of Paraná
46.6K papers, 546.5K citations

95% related

State University of Campinas
104.6K papers, 1.8M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023127
2022765
20216,826
20206,949
20196,316
20186,314