Therapeutic augmentation of NO-sGC-cGMP signalling: lessons learned from pulmonary arterial hypertension and heart failure

Heart Failure Reviews - The nitric oxide (NO)–guanylate cyclase (GC)–cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway plays an important role in cardiovascular, pulmonary and renal...     

A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

Patient preferences and predicted relative uptake for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

Objective

Ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) may be treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. We aim to estimate patients’ preferences for mCRC treatment and relative importance of cost, efficacy improvement, avoidance of side effects and therapy convenience, and relative uptake between profiles that resemble Bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) and Cetuximab (anti-EGFR), two commonly prescribed mCRC targeted therapies.