Nur noch kurz die Welt retten... Zur Diskursivierung gesellschaftspolitischer Interdiskurse in Let’s-Play-Video-Communities am Beispiel des Spiels ECO

Ausgehend von dem Befund, dass Let’s-Play-Videos in der Mediensozialisation von Heranwachsenden eine bedeutsame Rolle einnehmen können, geht der Artikel der Frage nach, wie dieser mediale Sozialisationsraum Kindern und Jugendlichen einen Zugang zu gesellschaftspolitischen Themen eröffnen kann. Im Zentrum stehen das 2018 veröffentlichte Simulationsspiel ECO und die dazugehörige Community of Practice. Betrachtet wird ein mit 1,2 Mio. Aufrufen innerhalb der Community stark rezipiertes Let’s-Play-Video des Content Creators Gronkh. Durch die spielbegleitende Interaktion und die ausgiebige Kommentierung der Rezipient*innen ergeben sich hier intermediale Transzendierungseffekte, innerhalb der Community dokumentiert sich auf mehreren Ebenen eine Mediengrenzen überschreitende Partizipationspraxis. Die dargestellte exemplarische Fallstudie fokussiert auf Grundlage eines sequenziell-gesprächsanalytischen Ansatzes u.a. das literarisch-ludische Spannungsverhältnis von Fiktionalisierung und Faktualität, das mit Blick auf das Potenzial zum politischen Denken als einem Denken in Möglichkeiten und unter Bezugnahme auf gesellschafts-politische Diskurse analytisch erschlossen und diskutiert wird.   Abstract (english): Just gotta save the world real quick. About the production of social and political discourses in the Let´ s-Play-video-community by the example of the game ECO Based on the finding that Let’s Play videos can play a significant role in the media socialization of adolescents, the article explores the question of how this medial socialization space can open up access to sociopolitical topics for children and adolescents. A special focus is placed on the simulation game Eco and the associated Community of Practice. The study examines a Let’s Play video by the content creator Gronkh, which has received 1.2 million views within the community. The interaction accompanying the game and the extensive comments of the recipients result in several intermedial transcendence effects; within the community, a practice of participation that transcends media boundaries is documented on several levels. On the basis of a sequential-conversation-analytical approach the exemplary case study presented here focuses on the literary-ludic tension between fictionalization and factuality which is analytically developed and discussed with a view to the potential for political thinking as a thinking in possibilities and with reference to socio-political discourses

Annual Bleeding Rates: Pitfalls of Clinical Trial Outcomes in Hemophilia Patients

Emerging treatment options for hemophilia, including gene therapy, modified factor products, antibody-based products, and other nonreplacement therapies, are in development or on their way to marketing authorization. For proof of efficacy, annual bleeding rates (ABRs) have become an increasingly important endpoint in hemophilia trials. We hypothesized that ABR analyses differ substantially between and within medicinal product classes and that the ABR observation period constitutes a major bias. For ABR characterization, an internal factor VIII (FVIII) treatment database has been built based on confidential clinical trial data submitted to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI). Furthermore, anonymized data from 46 trial protocols submitted for review to the PEI were analyzed (FVIII replacement, n = 27; antibody-based, n = 12; and gene therapy, n = 7) for methodology. Definitions of bleeding episodes and ABR observational periods differed substantially in clinical trials. In the initial observation phase, individual ABRs of patients, treated prophylactically for 1 year, vary by about 40% (P < 0.001), which finally led to a significant reduction of the ABR group mean by 20% (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the high variance in ABRs constitutes a major challenge in statistical analyses. In conclusion, considerable heterogeneity and bias in the ABR estimation in clinical trials was identified, which makes it substantially more difficult to compare the efficacy of different treatment regimens and products. Thus, awareness of the important pitfalls when using ABR as a clinical outcome is needed in the evaluation of hemophilia therapies for patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment agencies