Financial management differences between family and non-family Mexican tourist firms

El objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar las principales diferencias de gestión financiera entre las Micro, Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas (MIPYME) turísticas mexicanas familiares y no familiares, considerando variables como: Financiación, endeudamiento, rentabilidad, crecimiento y utilización de información contable y financiera. Se realizó una encuesta sobre una muestra de 122 MIPYME turísticas del estado de Quintana Roo (México), distribuida en 72 familiares y 50 no familiares. Los resultados muestran que las empresas familiares obtienen mayor rentabilidad y utilizan en menor medida la información contable y financiera que las no familiares. Adicionalmente, se pudo corroborar mediante el análisis multivariante que las empresas familiares son más antiguas que las no [email protected]@[email protected] aim of this study is to analyze the financial management among the micro, small and medium (MSMEs) family and non-family Mexican tourist firms. Some variables like financing, debt, profit, growth, accounting and financial information have been considered. A survey on a sample of 122 tourist MSMEs from Quintana Roo state (México) was used. It was composed by 72 families and 50 non-families firms. The results show that the family firms obtain higher profitability and use to a lesser extent accounting and financial information than the non-family firms. Additionally, it has been corroborated through multivariate analysis that the family firms have been running business longer than the non-family firms

Innovation in Family Firms:A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research

Through a systematic review of 118 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1961 and 2017, this article provides an integrative picture of the state of the art of the family firm innovation literature. Our aim is to widen existing understanding of innovation in family firms by building a theoretical bridge with studies in the mainstream innovation literature. Specifically, in identifying the main gaps in the literature and providing future research directions, our critical and dynamic picture of family-specific determinants of innovation is intended to advance the debate on innovation in general, and family firms in particular

Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT methods of analysis for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer

Purpose: The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT semiquantitative parameters for locally advanced low rectal cancer (LARC) treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). Methods: 68 patients with LARC had 18F-FDG PET/CT scans twice (baseline and 5–6 weeks post-nCRT). All patients underwent surgery with preservation of the sphincter 8 weeks later. 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis was performed by visual response assessment (VRA) and semiquantitative parameters: SUVmaxbaseline, SUVmeanbaseline, MTVbaseline, TLGbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, TLGpost-nCRT; ΔSUVmax and mean and Response indexes (RImax% and RImean%). Assessment of nCRT tumor response was performed according to the Mandard’s Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) and (y)pTNM staging on the surgical specimens. Concordances of VRA with TRG, and with (y)pTNM criteria were evaluated by Cohen’s K. Results were compared by t student test for unpaired groups. ROC curve analysis was performed. Results: VRA analysis of post-nCRT 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for the (y)pTNM outcome showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 87.5%, 66.7%, 83.8%, 92.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. Concordances of VRA with TRG and with (y)pTNM were moderate. For the outcome variable TRG, the statistical difference between responders and non-responders was significant for SUVmaxpost-nCRT and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM, there was a significant difference for MTVbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, RImax%, and RImean%. ROC analysis showed better AUCs: for the outcome variable TRG for SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM for MTVbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, RImax%, and RImean%. No significant differences among parameters were found. Conclusions: Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations for 18F-FDG PET/CT are the optimal approach; a valid parameter for response prediction has still to be established. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York