10 research outputs found
AVALIAĂĂO DO USO DE PLANILHAS COMPUTACIONAIS COMO UMA FERRAMENTA DIDĂTICA EM QUĂMICA ANALĂTICA QUALITATIVA
The use of spreadsheet softwares is not widespread in Chemical Education in Brazil as a computational education tool. By its turn the Qualitative Analytical Chemistry is considered a discipline with classical and non-flexible content. Thus in this work the spreadsheet software ExcelÂź was evaluated as a teaching tool in a Qualitative Analytical Chemistry course for calculations of concentrations of the species in equilibrium in solutions of acids. After presenting the theory involved in such calculations the students were invited to elaborate the representation of the distribution of these species in a graphical form, using the spreadsheet software. Then the teaching team evaluated the resulting graphics regarding form and contents. The graphics with conceptual and/or formal errors were returned for correction, revealing significant improvement in the second presentation in all cases. The software showed to be motivating for the content of the discipline, improving the learning interest, while it was possible to prove that even in classical disciplines it is possible to introduce new technologies to help the teaching process
Prevalence of vascular-endothelial growth factor, matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in primary breast cancer
Prevalence of vascular-endothelial growth factor, matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in primary breast cancer
Our objective was to determine the presence of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and MMP-9 and specific tissue inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP-1 and TIMP-2) in tumor samples obtained from patients with primary breast cancer. We attempted to correlate these findings with the status of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) and clinical-pathological characteristics such as age, tumor size, histological type, histological grade, and vascular invasion. Tumor samples from 88 patients with primary breast cancer were analyzed. The immunoreactivity of VEGF, MMP-2, MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 in tumors was correlated with clinical and pathological features, as well as SLN status. Nonparametric, Mann-Whittney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearmann tests were used. Categorical variables were analyzed by the Pearson test. No statistically significant correlation was found between the amount of VEGF, MMP-2, MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 and the presence of tumor cells in the SLN. However, larger tumor diameter (P < 0.01) and the presence of vascular invasion (P < 0.01) were correlated positively with a positive SLN. A significant correlation of higher VEGF levels (P = 0.04) and lower TIMP-1 levels (P = 0.04) with ductal histology was also observed. Furthermore, lower TIMP-2 levels showed a statistically significant correlation with younger age (<50 years) and larger tumor diameter (2.0-5.0 cm). A positive SLN correlated significantly with a larger tumor diameter and the presence of vascular invasion. Higher VEGF and lower TIMP-1 levels were observed in patients with ductal tumors, while higher TIMP-1 levels were observed in lobular tumors
ComplicaçÔes do abortamento e assistĂȘncia em maternidade pĂșblica integrada ao Programa Nacional Rede Cegonha
Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participantsâ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors
Facile Fabrication of Graphene-Supported Pt Electrochemical Sensor for Determination of Caffeine
Screen-printed disposable electrodes using graphite-polyurethane composites modified with magnetite and chitosan-coated magnetite nanoparticles for voltammetric epinephrine sensing: a comparative study
Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participantsâ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors
Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
© 2022 The authors.OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participantsâ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.N