Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version

Why Are Some Nations More Successful Than Others in Research Impact? A Comparison Between Denmark and Sweden

Bibliometric impact analyses show that Swedish research has less international visibility than Danish research. When taking a global view on all subject fields and selecting publications cited higher than the 90th percentile, i.e., the Top 10 %—publications, the Swedish Research Council shows that although Sweden ranks 15 % above world average, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland rank 35–40 % above. To explain these different performances, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences asked us to compare the national research systems on three levels: priority setting at national level, governance of universities and direction and funding of research. There are of course many similarities between the Danish and Swedish research systems but there are still subtle differences that have developed over time, which may explain the different international visibility. First of all, it does not depend on different levels of public spending on research and development. However, the core funding of universities relative external funding is higher in Denmark than in Sweden. The academic leadership of Danish universities in terms of board, vice-chancellor, faculty dean and department chair is also more coherent and focused on priority setting, recruitment, organization and deployment of resources to establish research environments that operate at the forefront of international research. On all these points we see a weaker leadership in Sweden. Furthermore, over the last 20 years, public funding of research in Sweden has become more and more unpredictable and program oriented with many new actors, while the Danish funding system, although it also has developed over time, shows more consistency with strong actors to fund individuals with novel ideas. The research policy in Sweden has also developed multiple, sometimes even conflicting goals, which have undermined conditions for high-impact research, while in Denmark a policy to support excellence in research has been more coherent

Of Red Threads and Green Dragons: Austrian Sociotechnical Imaginaries about STI cooperation with China

In this chapter, we address intersections of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and International Relations Theories (IR) by looking at how Austrian science, technology & innovation (STI) policy makers and related stakeholders envision and enact a close relationship between China and Austria in the field of green technologies. Analytically, we draw on the concept of ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ as proposed by Jasanoff and Kim, which attempts to grasp how visions of social order and technological development become entangled in the processes of science and technology policy and politics. China is currently arising as one of the key global players in STI. It is intensely courted by numerous countries seeking collaboration and market access. China’s most recent Five-Year-Plan has introduced a focus on environmental sustainability to complement economic growth. Based on interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we show how Austrian STI actors connect their national positioning activities to this recent focus on sustainability. We trace how they attempt to find common ground for relating to the rising and ever so dynamic People’s Republic by drawing on a nationally accepted narrative about Austrian technopolitical history and culture that casts the country as pioneer of environmental awareness and green technologies. We understand and analyze this process as part of a broader Austrian sociotechnical imaginary in the making that constitutes a situated response to an increasingly globalized STI system, while building on and reaffirming central elements of Austria’s local technopolitical culture and history