27 research outputs found

    Estudo comparativo da análise de ciclo de vida de concretos geopoliméricos e de concretos à base de cimento Portland composto (CP II)

    Get PDF
    A Análise de Ciclo de Vida (ACV) é um método que inclui a compilação e avaliação das entradas, saídas e dos impactos de um produto ao longo do seu ciclo de vida. Os resultados desta análise são utilizados para escolher alternativas favoráveis para uma aplicação específica. Este artigo utilizou as ferramentas de ACV, apoiada pelo software Umberto, para comparar o processo de obtenção de concretos de cimento Portland com o de concretos geopoliméricos, obtidos da ativação alcalina de aluminossilicatos. O impacto ambiental foi avaliado considerando 1 m³ de cada concreto, sendo (i) as emissões de CO2 (kg CO2/ m³) e (ii) a demanda energética (MJ/m³) as variáveis para determinar o potencial sustentável de ambos materiais. O objetivo principal foi avaliar se os concretos geopoliméricos são mais sustentáveis do que os concretos tradicionais. Os resultados obtidos mostraram que o consumo energético é reduzido em 45,8% na produção do concreto geopolimérico, quando comparado à produção do concreto de cimento Portland de desempenho mecânico equivalente. Com relação às emissões de CO2, o concreto geopolimérico reduz as emissões em 72,4%, em comparação ao concreto tradicional de cimento Portland CPII. Assim, o primeiro se mostra uma alternativa a ser considerada, na produção de materiais de construção de menor impacto ambiental

    The comparative responsiveness of Hospital Universitario Princesa Index and other composite indices for assessing rheumatoid arthritis activity

    Get PDF
    Objective To evaluate the responsiveness in terms of correlation of the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) comparatively to the traditional composite indices used to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to compare the performance of HUPI-based response criteria with that of the EULAR response criteria. Methods Secondary data analysis from the following studies: ACT-RAY (clinical trial), PROAR (early RA cohort) and EMECAR (pre-biologic era long term RA cohort). Responsiveness was evaluated by: 1) comparing change from baseline (Delta) of HUPI with Delta in other scores by calculating correlation coefficients; 2) calculating standardised effect sizes. The accuracy of response by HUPI and by EULAR criteria was analyzed using linear regressions in which the dependent variable was change in global assessment by physician (Delta GDA-Phy). Results Delta HUPI correlation with change in all other indices ranged from 0.387 to 0.791); HUPI's standardized effect size was larger than those from the other indices in each database used. In ACT-RAY, depending on visit, between 65 and 80% of patients were equally classified by HUPI and EULAR response criteria. However, HUPI criteria were slightly more stringent, with higher percentage of patients classified as non-responder, especially at early visits. HUPI response criteria showed a slightly higher accuracy than EULAR response criteria when using Delta GDA-Phy as gold standard. Conclusion HUPI shows good responsiveness in terms of correlation in each studied scenario (clinical trial, early RA cohort, and established RA cohort). Response criteria by HUPI seem more stringent than EULAR''s

    Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

    Get PDF
    Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified
    corecore