Institution
University of Aberdeen
Education•Aberdeen, United Kingdom•
About: University of Aberdeen is a education organization based out in Aberdeen, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 21174 authors who have published 49962 publications receiving 2105479 citations. The organization is also known as: Aberdeen University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Harvard University1, University of Sheffield2, University of Warwick3, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University4, University of Bern5, St James's University Hospital6, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven7, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary8, University of Aberdeen9, Cardiff University10, Netherlands Cancer Institute11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12
TL;DR: The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.
2,767 citations
••
TL;DR: Upon intravenous administration to mice, 2-Ara-Gl caused the typical tetrad of effects produced by THC: antinociception, immobility, reduction of spontaneous activity, and lowering of the rectal temperature.
2,764 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care in the UK.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies. To estimate the resource implications of these strategies. To develop a framework for deciding when it is efficient to develop and introduce clinical guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Healthstar, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, EMBASE, SIGLE and the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. REVIEW METHODS: Single estimates of dichotomous process variables were derived for each study comparison based upon the primary end-point or the median measure across several reported end-points. Separate analyses were undertaken for comparisons of different types of intervention. The study also explored whether the effects of multifaceted interventions increased with the number of intervention components. Studies reporting economic data were also critically appraised. A survey to estimate the feasibility and likely resource requirements of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in UK settings was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 235 studies reporting 309 comparisons met the inclusion criteria; of these 73% of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions, although the maximum number of replications of a specific multifaceted intervention was 11 comparisons. Overall, the majority of comparisons reporting dichotomous process data observed improvements in care; however, there was considerable variation in the observed effects both within and across interventions. Commonly evaluated single interventions were reminders, dissemination of educational materials, and audit and feedback. There were 23 comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. The majority of interventions observed modest to moderate improvements in care. No relationship was found between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. The majority of studies only reported costs of treatment; only 25 studies reported data on the costs of guideline development or guideline dissemination and implementation. The majority of studies used process measures for their primary end-point, despite the fact that only three guidelines were explicitly evidence based (and may not have been efficient). Respondents to the key informant survey rarely identified existing budgets to support guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. In general, the respondents thought that only dissemination of educational materials and short (lunchtime) educational meetings were generally feasible within current resources. CONCLUSIONS: There is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgement about how best to use the limited resources they have for clinical governance and related activities to maximise population benefits. They need to consider the potential clinical areas for clinical effectiveness activities, the likely benefits and costs required to introduce guidelines and the likely benefits and costs as a result of any changes in provider behaviour. Further research is required to: develop and validate a coherent theoretical framework of health professional and organisational behaviour and behaviour change to inform better the choice of interventions in research and service settings, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.
2,733 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper provides updated and extended guidance, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT statement and the 2008consORT statement for the reporting of abstracts, on how to report the results of cluster randomised controlled trials.
Abstract: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. It was initially published in 1996 and focused on the reporting of parallel group randomised controlled trials. The statement was revised in 2001, with a further update in 2010. A separate CONSORT statement for the reporting of abstracts was published in 2008. In earlier papers we considered the implications of the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of cluster randomised trial. In this paper we provide updated and extended guidance, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT statement and the 2008 CONSORT statement for the reporting of abstracts.
2,655 citations
••
American Museum of Natural History1, University of Tartu2, University of Gothenburg3, James Hutton Institute4, University of Aberdeen5, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences6, University of California, Berkeley7, Aberystwyth University8, Estonian University of Life Sciences9, Spanish National Research Council10, Royal Botanic Gardens11, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic12, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences13, University of Tennessee14, University of Helsinki15, Stanford University16, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich17, University of Toronto18, University of Florida19, University of New Mexico20, University of Tübingen21
TL;DR: All fungal species represented by at least two ITS sequences in the international nucleotide sequence databases are now given a unique, stable name of the accession number type, and the term ‘species hypothesis’ (SH) is introduced for the taxa discovered in clustering on different similarity thresholds.
Abstract: The nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region is the formal fungal barcode and in most cases the marker of choice for the exploration of fungal diversity in environmental samples. Two problems are particularly acute in the pursuit of satisfactory taxonomic assignment of newly generated ITS sequences: (i) the lack of an inclusive, reliable public reference data set and (ii) the lack of means to refer to fungal species, for which no Latin name is available in a standardized stable way. Here, we report on progress in these regards through further development of the UNITE database (http://unite.ut.ee) for molecular identification of fungi. All fungal species represented by at least two ITS sequences in the international nucleotide sequence databases are now given a unique, stable name of the accession number type (e.g. Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus|GU586904|SH133781.05FU), and their taxonomic and ecological annotations were corrected as far as possible through a distributed, third-party annotation effort. We introduce the term ‘species hypothesis’ (SH) for the taxa discovered in clustering on different similarity thresholds (97–99%). An automatically or manually designated sequence is chosen to represent each such SH. These reference sequences are released (http://unite.ut.ee/repository.php) for use by the scientific community in, for example, local sequence similarity searches and in the QIIME pipeline. The system and the data will be updated automatically as the number of public fungal ITS sequences grows. We invite everybody in the position to improve the annotation or metadata associated with their particular fungal lineages of expertise to do so through the new Web-based sequence management system in UNITE.
2,605 citations
Authors
Showing all 21424 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Paul M. Thompson | 183 | 2271 | 146736 |
Feng Zhang | 172 | 1278 | 181865 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Peter A. R. Ade | 162 | 1387 | 138051 |
David W. Johnson | 160 | 2714 | 140778 |
Pete Smith | 156 | 2464 | 138819 |
Naveed Sattar | 155 | 1326 | 116368 |
John R. Hodges | 149 | 812 | 82709 |
Ruth J. F. Loos | 142 | 647 | 92485 |
Alan J. Silman | 141 | 708 | 92864 |
Michael J. Keating | 140 | 1169 | 76353 |
David Price | 138 | 1687 | 93535 |
John D. Scott | 135 | 625 | 83878 |
Aarno Palotie | 129 | 711 | 89975 |
Rajat Gupta | 126 | 1240 | 72881 |