Institution
University of Liverpool
Education•Liverpool, United Kingdom•
About: University of Liverpool is a education organization based out in Liverpool, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 40406 authors who have published 94388 publications receiving 3188970 citations. The organization is also known as: Liverpool University & The University of Liverpool.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: ‘Angiogenesis Group, Department of Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium'; ‘ICRF Molecular Oncologists, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
758 citations
••
TL;DR: A rating scale using items based on the desired outcomes of shared learning, to assess the `readiness' of health care students for shared learning activities is developed.
Abstract: Objectives:
Although shared learning activities are gradually being introduced to health care undergraduates, it has not been possible to measure the effects of educational interventions on students' attitudes. The main objective of this study was to develop a rating scale using items based on the desired outcomes of shared
learning, to assess the `readiness' of health care students
for shared learning activities.
Design and participants:
A questionnaire study of 120 undergraduate students in 8 health care professions.
Results:
Principal components analysis resulted a 3-factor scale with 19 items and having an internal consistency of 0.9. The factors have been initially named `team-working and collaboration', professional identity' and `professional roles'.
Conclusions:
The new scale may be used to explore differences in students' perception and attitudes towards multi-professional learning. Further work is necessary to validate the scale amongst a larger population.
758 citations
••
TL;DR: The comparison of visual acuity at 1 year between bevacizumab and ranibizumabs was inconclusive, and other outcomes are consistent with the drugs and treatment regimens having similar efficacy and safety.
758 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, two MCP Realizer machines were used to process 6061 and AlSi12 alloys, one processing at 50 W and the other at 100 W laser power.
756 citations
••
Karolinska University Hospital1, Karolinska Institutet2, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania3, Great Ormond Street Hospital4, Brigham and Women's Hospital5, University of Kansas6, Mayo Clinic7, University of Alabama8, University of Pittsburgh9, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust10, University of Liverpool11, University of Debrecen12, University of Toronto13, University of Guadalajara14, University of Cambridge15, University of Tsukuba16, United States Department of Health and Human Services17, Tokyo Medical and Dental University18, Oregon State University19, Dalhousie University20, Peking University21, Duke University22, Oslo University Hospital23, New Generation University College24, Charles University in Prague25, National Institutes of Health26
TL;DR: New classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric groups, and have been partially validated and generally perform better than existing criteria.
Abstract: Objective To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups. Methods Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were used to derive the classification criteria. Results Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children), new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Subclassification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cut-off of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) ‘probable IIM’, had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to ‘definite IIM’. A probability of Conclusions The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of ‘definite’, ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria.
754 citations
Authors
Showing all 40921 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lei Jiang | 170 | 2244 | 135205 |
Gregory Y.H. Lip | 169 | 3159 | 171742 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Nicholas J. White | 161 | 1352 | 104539 |
Tomas Hökfelt | 158 | 1033 | 95979 |
William J. Sutherland | 148 | 966 | 94423 |
Tommaso Dorigo | 141 | 1806 | 104276 |
Paul Jackson | 141 | 1372 | 93464 |
Andrew Askew | 140 | 1496 | 99635 |
Stephen Wimpenny | 138 | 1489 | 104084 |
Robin Erbacher | 138 | 1721 | 100252 |
Andrew Mehta | 137 | 1444 | 101810 |
Tim Jones | 135 | 1314 | 91422 |
Christophe Delaere | 135 | 1320 | 96742 |
Sinead Farrington | 133 | 1422 | 91099 |