Pentobarbital versus thiopental in the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction: Experimental research has demonstrated that the level of neuroprotection conferred by the various barbiturates is not equal. Until now no controlled studies have been conducted to compare their effectiveness, even though the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines recommend that such studies be undertaken. The objectives of the present study were to assess the effectiveness of pentobarbital and thiopental in terms of controlling refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury, and to evaluate the adverse effects of treatment. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, cohort study comparing two treatments: pentobarbital and thiopental. Patients who had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score after resuscitation ≤ 8 points or neurological deterioration during the first week after trauma) and with refractory intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure > 20 mmHg) first-tier measures, in accordance with the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines. Results: A total of 44 patients (22 in each group) were included over a 5-year period. There were no statistically significant differences in ' baseline characteristics, except for admission computed cranial tomography characteristics, using the Traumatic Coma Data Bank classification. Uncontrollable intracranial pressure occurred in 11 patients (50%) in the thiopental treatment group and in 18 patients (82%) in the pentobarbital group (P = 0.03). Under logistic regression analysis - undertaken in an effort to adjust for the cranial tomography characteristics, which were unfavourable for pentobarbital - thiopental was more effective than pentobarbital in terms of controlling intracranial pressure (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 21.9; P = 0.027). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the incidence of arterial hypotension or infection. Conclusions: Thiopental appeared to be more effective than pentobarbital in controlling intracranial hypertension refractory to first-tier measures. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the imbalance in cranial tomography characteristics and the different dosages employed in the two arms of the study. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups

Open access in Southern European countries

The Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) is a public foundation under the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation whose mission is to strengthen the value chain of knowledge by fostering science and innovation and trying to integrate them and bring them closer to society, in response to the needs and expectations of the Spanish science, technology and enterprise system. The Foundation’s goal is to be recognized by Spanish society as a key reference in the dissemination, information and measurement of science and innovation. It also wishes to contribute to the development of a knowledge-based economy. One of the main challenges of the Foundation is to lead the integration and rationalization of scientific information and science, technology and innovation metrics, described as the “integrate and measure vector” in its 2010- 2012 strategic plan. FECYT already has considerable experience in managing national scientific information. It is the national licensee of the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge accessed by the Spanish scientific community. It is also firmly committed to establishing itself as the Spanish hub in favour of the open access (OA) movement (for free access to scientific information available on the Internet), in combination with supporting the traditional markets of scientific information. In 2010 FECYT organized the 5th International Conference on Open Repositories in Madrid, with the aim of positioning Spain in the debate on emerging trends in the management of scientific information. The authorities are opening the door to the open access movement, under the belief that publicly funded research should be freely available. Among other initiatives, the 2010 Spanish Bill on Science, Technology and Innovation urges researchers to deposit their research papers produced with public funding in institutional repositories

Ciencia abierta en España 2023: informe de situación y análisis de la percepción

Proyecto RTI2018-094360-B-I00Durante el período 2019-2022, en el marco del proyecto Ciencia abierta en España (RTI2018-094360-B-I00), nuestro grupo de investigación ha analizado la percepción de la ciencia abierta y de sus elementos componentes (acceso abierto, datos abiertos, revisión abierta, modelos de evaluación) por parte de los agentes implicados en el sistema de investigación (autores, editores de revistas, vicerrectores y profesionales de bibliotecas). En primer lugar, llevamos a cabo una aproximación cualitativa a la percepción de las barreras y los elementos favorecedores de la ciencia abierta mediante un conjunto de entrevistas y un grupo de discusión a dichos agentes (González- Teruel, A. et al. 2022). En total se realizaron 23 entrevistas: editores de revistas científicas universitarias (9 entrevistas), investigadores (9), vicerrectores (3), y responsables de agencias de evaluación (2) y un focus group en el cual participaron ocho profesionales de bibliotecas universitariasA partir de aquí, realizamos una aproximación cualitativa y cuantitativa mediante encuestas aplicadas a estos mismos agentes y centradas en su percepción sobre la situación respecto del acceso abierto, los datos abiertos, la revisión abierta, los modelos de evaluación y la ciencia abierta en general. Se han publicado los resultados referentes a los vicerrectores (Abad-García, et al., 2022), los editores de revistas científicas (Melero et al., 2023), el personal de bibliotecas (Santos-Hermosa y Boté-Vericad, 2023) y está pendiente de publicación el estudio con las opiniones de los autores (Ollé et al., 2023).El objetivo general de este informe consiste en describir el grado de desarrollo de la ciencia abierta en España en 2023 y también la percepción de los principales agentes implicados (investigadores, editores de revistas científicas, vicerrectores, directores de agencias de evaluación, profesionales de bibliotecas) sobre las barreras y los elementos favorecedores de la ciencia abierta en general y de sus principales componentes (acceso abierto, datos abiertos, revisión abierta, evaluación de la ciencia), en particular.El documento se estructura en tres grandes apartados, que se refieren a los principales componentes de la ciencia abierta: acceso abierto, datos de investigación y evaluación de la ciencia. Para cada uno de ellos, se lleva a cabo un repaso de los aspectos legales y las políticas de promoción, una descripción de los avances en lo que respecta a contenidos (publicaciones, repositorios, etc.) y se acompaña de un análisis de la percepción de los investigadores, editores, bibliotecarios y vicerrectores respecto de las barreras y elementos favorecedores para impulsar la apertura de las publicaciones, de los datos abiertos y de nuevos modelos de evaluación científica. Finalmente se incluye un apartado dedicado a la percepción de la ciencia abierta en general

Pentobarbital versus thiopental in the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with traumatic brain injury : a randomized controlled trial

Introduction: Experimental research has demonstrated that the level of neuroprotection conferred by the various barbiturates is not equal. Until now no controlled studies have been conducted to compare their effectiveness, even though the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines recommend that such studies be undertaken. The objectives of the present study were to assess the effectiveness of pentobarbital and thiopental in terms of controlling refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury, and to evaluate the adverse effects of treatment. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, cohort study comparing two treatments: pentobarbital and thiopental. Patients who had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score after resuscitation ≤ 8 points or neurological deterioration during the first week after trauma) and with refractory intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure > 20 mmHg) first-tier measures, in accordance with the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines. Results: A total of 44 patients (22 in each group) were included over a 5-year period. There were no statistically significant differences in ' baseline characteristics, except for admission computed cranial tomography characteristics, using the Traumatic Coma Data Bank classification. Uncontrollable intracranial pressure occurred in 11 patients (50%) in the thiopental treatment group and in 18 patients (82%) in the pentobarbital group (P = 0.03). Under logistic regression analysis - undertaken in an effort to adjust for the cranial tomography characteristics, which were unfavourable for pentobarbital - thiopental was more effective than pentobarbital in terms of controlling intracranial pressure (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 21.9; P = 0.027). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the incidence of arterial hypotension or infection. Conclusions: Thiopental appeared to be more effective than pentobarbital in controlling intracranial hypertension refractory to first-tier measures. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the imbalance in cranial tomography characteristics and the different dosages employed in the two arms of the study. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups

Understanding the Subjective Experience of Long-term Remote Measurement Technology Use for Symptom Tracking in People With Depression: Multisite Longitudinal Qualitative Analysis

Background: Remote measurement technologies (RMTs) have the potential to revolutionize major depressive disorder (MDD) disease management by offering the ability to assess, monitor, and predict symptom changes. However, the promise of RMT data depends heavily on sustained user engagement over extended periods. In this paper, we report a longitudinal qualitative study of the subjective experience of people with MDD engaging with RMTs to provide insight into system usability and user experience and to provide the basis for future promotion of RMT use in research and clinical practice. Objective: We aimed to understand the subjective experience of long-term engagement with RMTs using qualitative data collected in a longitudinal study of RMTs for monitoring MDD. The objectives were to explore the key themes associated with long-term RMT use and to identify recommendations for future system engagement. Methods: In this multisite, longitudinal qualitative research study, 124 semistructured interviews were conducted with 99 participants across the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands at 3-month, 12-month, and 24-month time points during a study exploring RMT use (the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Major Depressive Disorder study). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded in the native language, with the resulting quotes translated into English. Results: There were 5 main themes regarding the subjective experience of long-term RMT use: research-related factors, the utility of RMTs for self-management, technology-related factors, clinical factors, and system amendments and additions. Conclusions: The subjective experience of long-term RMT use can be considered from 2 main perspectives: experiential factors (how participants construct their experience of engaging with RMTs) and system-related factors (direct engagement with the technologies). A set of recommendations based on these strands are proposed for both future research and the real-world implementation of RMTs into clinical practice. Future exploration of experiential engagement with RMTs will be key to the successful use of RMTs in clinical care

Revistas científicas: situación actual y retos de futuro

Editor literari: Ernest AbadalConté: 1. La revista científica: un breve recorrido histórico / por Ángel Borrego -- 2. La situación de las revistas a nivel internacional / por Miguel Navas -- 3. El proceso de revisión por pares, por Francisca Abad -- 4. Evaluar revistas científicas: un afán con mucho presente y pasado e incierto futuro / por Emilio Delgado -- 5. La adquisición de las revistas, por Lluís Anglada -- 6. El perfil de las revistas científicas españolas respecto al acceso, derechos de explotación y reutilización de sus contenidos / por Remedios Melero -- 7. Los modelos de negocio de las revistas científicas en España / por Melba G. Claudio-González y Anna Villarroya -- 8. Presencia de revistas españolas en bases de datos internacionales / por Marta Somoza, Javier Guallar, Josep-Manel Rodríguez-Gairín y Ernest Abadal -- 9. Las revistas científicas en el contexto del acceso abierto / por Ernest Abadal -- 10. Redes sociales y altmetrics: nuevos retos para las revistas científicas / por Candela Ollé y Alexandre López-Borrull -- 11. Cambios y tendencias en la publicación de revistas científicas / por Alexandre López-BorrullLas revistas académicas, dotadas hoy de un notable dinamismo, constituyen el principal canal de comunicación de los avances científicos. Durante más de 350 años, su estructura y funcionamiento han variado muy poco, pero en las últimas décadas se han producido innovaciones relevantes, como la digitalización, el acceso abierto y el sistema de evaluación, que han representado un auténtico cambio de paradigma. Esta monografía aborda de manera global la coyuntura y los principales retos a los que se enfrenta la edición de revistas científicas. La primera parte se centra en los antecedentes históricos, la situación internacional, la revisión por expertos, la evaluación y los sistemas de compra. La segunda ofrece una panorámica de las revistas españolas, un estudio de su viabilidad económica y también de su presencia en bases de datos internacionales. Finalmente, se exponen las nuevas tendencias, derivadas del modelo de acceso abierto, del uso de las redes sociales y altmetrics, o de otras innovaciones. En conjunto, la presente obra propone un marco de análisis y elementos de debate para mejorar el reconocimiento y la difusión de las revistas científicas, así como herramientas para comprender el valor de su aportación