309 research outputs found

    Effect of Pimobendan in Dogs with Preclinical Myxomatous Mitral Valve Disease and Cardiomegaly: The EPIC Study - A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Pimobendan is effective in treatment of dogs with congestive heart failure (CHF) secondary to myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD). Its effect on dogs before the onset of CHF is unknown. Hypothesis/Objectives: Administration of pimobendan (0.4-0.6 mg/kg/d in divided doses) to dogs with increased heart size secondary to preclinical MMVD, not receiving other cardiovascular medications, will delay the onset of signs of CHF, cardiac-related death, or euthanasia. Animals: 360 client-owned dogs with MMVD with left atrial-to-aortic ratio >= 1.6, normalized left ventricular internal diameter in diastole >= 1.7, and vertebral heart sum >10.5. Methods: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, multicenter clinical trial. Primary outcome variable was time to a composite of the onset of CHF, cardiac-related death, or euthanasia. Results: Median time to primary endpoint was 1228 days (95% CI: 856-NA) in the pimobendan group and 766 days (95% CI: 667-875) in the placebo group (P = .0038). Hazard ratio for the pimobendan group was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.87) compared with the placebo group. The benefit persisted after adjustment for other variables. Adverse events were not different between treatment groups. Dogs in the pimobendan group lived longer (median survival time was 1059 days (95% CI: 952-NA) in the pimobendan group and 902 days (95% CI: 747-1061) in the placebo group) (P = .012). Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Administration of pimobendan to dogs with MMVD and echocardiographic and radiographic evidence of cardiomegaly results in prolongation of preclinical period and is safe and well tolerated. Prolongation of preclinical period by approximately 15 months represents substantial clinical benefit

    A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

    Get PDF
    Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

    Justice: Greater Access, Lower Costs

    Get PDF
    Litigation imposes large costs on society; this justifies settlement considerations. In any case, access to justice is critical to socioeconomic development; as such, it needs to be balanced with litigation minimization. This study examines the tradeoff between litigation and access to justice and explicitly elucidates their relationship. In considering access issues, this study finds that the outcomes of policies that affect parties’ litigation decisions partially depart from those in the standard literature. For instance, increasing parties’ litigation costs does not necessarily promote settlement in the shadow of the court. Rather, effects depend on the elasticity of the demand for legal remedies. Furthermore, even while pushing litigation, enhancing access to justice is efficient as long as the claimant’s marginal propensity to litigate is smaller than the social opportunity-cost of access to justice. This finding offers further insight into the suitability of litigation subsidization through legal aid
    corecore