98 research outputs found

    Decay Constants of Heavy-Light Mesons

    Full text link
    The decay constants of the heavy-light pseudoscalar mesons are studied in a high statistics run using the Wilson action at β=6.0\beta=6.0 and β=6.2\beta=6.2, and the clover action at β=6.0\beta=6.0. The systematics of O(a)O(a) discretisation errors are discussed. Our best estimates of the decay constants are: fDf_D = 218(9) MeV, fD/fDsf_D/f_{Ds} = 1.11(1) and we obtain preliminary values for fBf_B.Comment: at the Dallas Lattice Conference, October 1993. 3 pages in a single postscript file, uuencoded form. Rome Preprint 93/98

    A High Statistics Lattice Calculation of fBstaticf^{static}_B at β=6.2\beta=6.2 Using the Clover Action

    Full text link
    We present a calculation of fBf_B in the static limit, obtained by numerical simulation of quenched QCD, at β=6.2\beta=6.2 on a 183×6418^3 \times 64 lattice, using the SW-Clover quark action. The decay constant has been extracted by studying heavy(static)-light correlation functions of different smeared operators, on a sample of 220 gauge field configurations. We have obtained fBstatic=(290±15±45)f_B^{static}=(290 \pm 15 \pm 45) MeV, where the first error comes from the uncertainty in the determination of the matrix element and the second comes from the uncertainty in the lattice spacing. We also obtain MBsMBd=(70±10)M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}= (70 \pm 10) MeV and fBsstat/fBdstat=1.11(3)f^{stat}_{B_s}/f^{stat}_{B_d}=1.11(3). A comparison of our results with other calculations of the same quantity is made.Comment: 12 pages, LaTex, 3 figs. (figures not included; available upon request from [email protected]) ROME prep. 94/981, 18 February 199

    Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health-related quality of life and survival are two important outcome measures in cancer research and practice. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between quality of life data and survival time in cancer patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A review was undertaken of all the full publications in the English language biomedical journals between 1982 and 2008. The search was limited to cancer, and included the combination of keywords 'quality of life', 'patient reported-outcomes' 'prognostic', 'predictor', 'predictive' and 'survival' that appeared in the titles of the publications. In addition, each study was examined to ensure that it used multivariate analysis. Purely psychological studies were excluded. A manual search was also performed to include additional papers of potential interest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 451 citations were identified in this rapid and systematic review of the literature. Of these, 104 citations on the relationship between quality of life and survival were found to be relevant and were further examined. The findings are summarized under different headings: heterogeneous samples of cancer patients, lung cancer, breast cancer, gastro-oesophageal cancers, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, melanoma and other cancers. With few exceptions, the findings showed that quality of life data or some aspects of quality of life measures were significant independent predictors of survival duration. Global quality of life, functioning domains and symptom scores - such as appetite loss, fatigue and pain - were the most important indicators, individually or in combination, for predicting survival times in cancer patients after adjusting for one or more demographic and known clinical prognostic factors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This review provides evidence for a positive relationship between quality of life data or some quality of life measures and the survival duration of cancer patients. Pre-treatment (baseline) quality of life data appeared to provide the most reliable information for helping clinicians to establish prognostic criteria for treating their cancer patients. It is recommended that future studies should use valid instruments, apply sound methodological approaches and adequate multivariate statistical analyses adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and known clinical prognostic factors with a satisfactory validation strategy. This strategy is likely to yield more accurate and specific quality of life-related prognostic variables for specific cancers.</p

    Psychologists’ Role in Concussion Assessments for Children and Adolescents in Pediatric Practice

    No full text
    An estimated 1.1 to 1.9 million children and adolescents in the United States are treated for a sports- or recreationally-related concussion each year. The importance of formalized assessment and measurement of concussion symptoms has been widely recognized as a component of best-practice treatment. The present paper reviews a sample of the most commonly used measures of concussion symptomology and explores psychologists&rsquo; role in their application in a pediatric practice. In addition, other issues such as accessibility and the appropriateness of application with child and adolescent patients are discussed. Literature is reviewed from journals pertaining to pediatric and adolescent medicine, sports medicine, neuropsychology, and testing and measurement

    Mikrochemische Untersuchung von Lebensmitteln

    No full text

    Total Shoulder Arthroplasty After Previous Arthroscopic Surgery for Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Case-Control Matched Cohort Study

    No full text
    Background: When comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) for glenohumeral osteoarthritis fails, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) may be needed, and it remains unknown whether previous CAM adversely affects outcomes after subsequent TSA. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent TSA as a primary procedure with those who underwent TSA after CAM (CAM-TSA). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients younger than 70 years who underwent primary TSA or CAM-TSA and were at least 2 years postoperative were included. A total of 21 patients who underwent CAM-TSA were matched to 42 patients who underwent primary TSA by age, sex, and grade of osteoarthritis. Intraoperative blood loss and surgical time were assessed. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected preoperatively and at final follow-up including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction. Revision arthroplasty was defined as failure. Results: Of 63 patients, 56 of them (19 CAM-TSA and 37 primary TSA; 88.9%) were available for follow-up. There were 16 female (28.6%) and 40 male (71.4%) patients with a mean age of 57.8 years (range, 38.8-66.7 years). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P > .999) or surgical time (P = .127) between the groups. There were 4 patients (7.1%) who had failure, and failure rates did not differ significantly between the CAM-TSA (5.3%; n = 1) and primary TSA (8.1%; n = 3) groups (P > .999). Additionally, 2 patients underwent revision arthroplasty because of trauma. A total of 50 patients who did not experience failure (17 CAM-TSA and 33 primary TSA) completed PRO measures at a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.0-11.5 years), with no significant difference between the CAM-TSA (4.4 years [range, 2.1-10.5 years]) and primary TSA (5.0 years [range, 2.0-11.5 years]) groups (P = .164). Both groups improved significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively in all PRO scores (P < .05). No significant differences in any median PRO scores between the CAM-TSA and primary TSA groups, respectively, were seen at final follow-up: ASES: 89.9 (interquartile range [IQR], 74.9-96.6) versus 94.1 (IQR, 74.9-98.3) (P = .545); SANE: 84.0 (IQR, 74.0-94.0) versus 91.5 (IQR, 75.3-99.0) (P = .246); QuickDASH: 9.0 (IQR, 3.4-27.3) versus 9.0 (IQR, 5.1-18.1) (P = .921); SF-12 PCS: 53.8 (IQR, 50.1-57.1) versus 49.3 (IQR, 41.2-56.5) (P = .065); and patient satisfaction: 9.5 (IQR, 7.3-10.0) versus 9.0 (IQR, 5.3-10.0) (P = .308). Conclusion: Patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis who failed previous CAM benefited similarly from TSA compared with patients who opted directly for TSA
    corecore