Éditorial

Le numéro qui paraît aujourd’hui contient des articles qui portent sur des sujets divers. Il n’est donc pas thématique. Pourtant, ils se regroupent aisément en deux ensembles très cohérents. Plusieurs de ces essais portent sur l’histoire de l’histoire de l’art et de l’archéologie au sens large ; ils offrent des points de vue nouveaux sur ce champ disciplinaire, où le musée a joué un rôle essentiel. Angélique Allaire se livre à une enquête policière sur une figure de l’archéologie – Prosper Bi..

Putting Art in its Place: the “Modern System of the Arts” in Bibliographies and Bibliothecae

The desire to gather, organize and classify knowledge has long manifested itself. In a library the books are arranged on the shelves in order to facilitate their retrieval. Similarly, in the large catalogues of books and bibliographies compiled over the centuries (“libraries without walls”), references are organised alphabetically or thematically (or using a combination of both). This article attempts to identify and examine the position of the arts within the major bibliographical systems, bibliographies and bibliothecae that have been published since the mid-sixteenth century. It therefore asks which arts were included, and questions how far we can identify a “modern system of the arts”. It also identifies the disciplines with which the arts were most frequently identified and connected (mechanical arts, sciences, literature and poetry). Careful reading and analysis of the bibliographies also raises related questions concerning the readership of artistic literature.Le désir de collecter, organiser et classifier le savoir est très ancien. Dans une bibliothèque, les ouvrages sont disposés sur les rayonnages de façon à faciliter leur localisation. De même, dans les grands catalogues de livres et dans les bibliographies dressées au fil des siècles (les « bibliothèques sans murs »), les références sont classées par ordre alphabétique ou thématique (ou un mélange des deux). Cet article s’efforce de déterminer la place qu’occupent les arts dans les grands systèmes bibliographiques, les bibliographies et les bibliothecae publiées depuis la moitié du xvie siècle. Il s’agit donc de savoir quels arts précis sont inclus et de déterminer si l’on peut identifier un « système moderne des arts », mais aussi d’identifier les disciplines auxquelles les arts sont le plus fréquemment rapportés ou assimilés (arts mécaniques, sciences, littérature, poésie). Un examen attentif des bibliographies soulève également des questions apparentées concernant le lectorat des textes sur l’art

Putting sculpture on show / Exposer la sculpture : conclusion

The creative act is but one, albeit the most essential one, of the episodes in an artwork’s life. Long privileged as a subject of study by art historians, the work’s conception and translation into form have historically attracted much scholarly attention and inspired many lengthy and erudite texts. More recently, however, art historians have begun to pay increasing attention to the other stages in a work’s life, following its departure from the artist’s studio, and thus to the forces that co..

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Le désherbage - et après ?

Le rectorat de l’Université de Neuchâtel a récemment demandé aux directeurs et bibliothécaires responsables des bibliothèques de définir une politique de désherbage et par la suite de procéder au désherbage proprement dit. Pour mieux comprendre les enjeux de ce dossier, il faut se pencher sur la littérature déjà existante dans le domaine et expliciter brièvement les théories qui se sont imposées, et qui régissent les débats dans les milieux de la profession. Il faut ensuite identifier les critères qui doivent être pondérés plus fortement, dans la situation concrète d’une bibliothèque universitaire et spécialisée. Les critères ainsi pondérés servent à démontrer qu’aucune des théories ‘canoniques’ évoquées ne répond entièrement à notre situation et à nos besoins spécifiques. Mais ces critères pondérés nous aident à établir une politique spécifique, taillée sur mesure et susceptible de nous fournir la liste des ouvrages ‘candidats au désherbage’. Une fois la liste des ouvrages à être désherbés établie, et les livres sortis de nos rayons et de notre système informatisé, le dossier « désherbage » n’est pas clos. D’un point de vue plus large, il peut servir à nous aider à jeter un oeil neuf sur nos collections. Le travail du désherbage ne représente alors qu’une partie du travail à effectuer dans la bibliothèque. Parallèlement, une nouvelle politique de présentation, de visibilité de la bibliothèque sera lancée. En effet, il s’agira d’une politique de mise en valeur de la bibliothèque, de sa nouvelle direction, des changements en cours et des nouvelles ressources qui seront proposées aux usagers