Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for acute complicated diverticulitis: a comparative study of outcomes - a systematic review

Acute complicated diverticulitis presents a more severe form of diverticular illness frequently needing urgent medical intervention and possibly surgical therapy. The aim of this review is to gather conclusive evidence from the literature comparing laparoscopic techniques to open and conservative ones in order to determine the most effective treatment plan for complicated diverticulitis. Online databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Elsevier and many others were systematically searched according to an inclusion criterion to obtain a total of 13 studies to be included in the review. 8/13 studies presented short term outcomes while 5/13 studies concluded with long term outcomes following index surgeries. Based on the end results, it can be concluded that laparoscopic surgery, in particular laparoscopic colon resection is superior to other techniques in treating complicated diverticulitis in terms of fewer short-term complications, low mortality rate better quality of life with few recurrence rates. However, other approaches have their own advantages and can be given priority based on the unique presentation of each case. The clinicians are advised to make informed decisions keeping in view all the patient and disease associated aspects

The Potts Fully Frustrated model: Thermodynamics, percolation and dynamics in 2 dimensions

We consider a Potts model diluted by fully frustrated Ising spins. The model corresponds to a fully frustrated Potts model with variables having an integer absolute value and a sign. This model presents precursor phenomena of a glass transition in the high-temperature region. We show that the onset of these phenomena can be related to a thermodynamic transition. Furthermore this transition can be mapped onto a percolation transition. We numerically study the phase diagram in 2 dimensions (2D) for this model with frustration and {\em without} disorder and we compare it to the phase diagram of $i)$ the model with frustration {\em and} disorder and of $ii)$ the ferromagnetic model. Introducing a parameter that connects the three models, we generalize the exact expression of the ferromagnetic Potts transition temperature in 2D to the other cases. Finally, we estimate the dynamic critical exponents related to the Potts order parameter and to the energy.Comment: 10 pages, 10 figures, new result

Report of the Special-purpose Committee on Virtual Participation in the Nomenclature Section

The Special-purpose Committee on Virtual Participation in the Nomenclature Section was established by the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, China in 2017, with the mandate “to investigate the possibility of and mechanisms for virtual participation and voting in the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress via the internet” and to report to the XX IBC. The wide access to the World Wide Web and availability of software for virtual meetings makes the possibility for virtual (online) attendance and voting at a Nomenclature Section seem attainable and advisable. In order to make informed recommendations, we discussed various aspects of online attendance and voting, such as: who should be able to observe?; what would qualify a person to cast institutional votes and personal votes?; if the accumulation of institutional votes should be allowed by an online voter; registration of online voters; how costs would be covered; and recommendations for online attendees. This report provides a synthesis of our discussions and is necessary for interpreting the proposals of this Special-purpose Committee to change aspects of Div. III (Provisions for governance) of the Code (Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1397–1398. 2021). This report and those proposals should be consulted together.Fil: Landrum, Leslie R.. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fortunato, Renee Hersilia. Universidad de Morón. Facultad de Agronomía y Ciencias Agroalimentarias; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion; ArgentinaFil: Barkworth, Mary. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Breitwieser, Ilse. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research; Nueva ZelandaFil: Demissew, Sebsebe. Addis Ababa University; EtiopíaFil: Dönmez, Ali A.. Hacettepe University; TurquíaFil: Dutta, Suchandra. Rishi Dayaram And Seth Hassaram National College And Seth Wassiamull Assomull Science College; IndiaFil: Freire Fierro, Alina. Universidad Regional Amazónica Ikiam; EcuadorFil: Kim, Young Dong. Hallym University; Corea del SurFil: León, Blanca. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; PerúFil: Moore, Gerry. United States Department of Agriculture; Estados UnidosFil: Mosyakin, Sergei L.. Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; UcraniaFil: Oh, Sang Hun. Daejeon University; Corea del SurFil: Parra-O, Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Prado, Jefferson. Instituto de Botânica de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Rico Arce, Lourdes. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad; México. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Sennikov, Alexander N.. Russian Academy of Sciences; Rusia. University of Helsinki; FinlandiaFil: Smith, Gideon F.. Nelson Mandela University; Sudáfric

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply

Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders