全文获取类型
收费全文 | 9763篇 |
免费 | 627篇 |
国内免费 | 165篇 |
专业分类
耳鼻咽喉 | 83篇 |
儿科学 | 359篇 |
妇产科学 | 164篇 |
基础医学 | 897篇 |
口腔科学 | 329篇 |
临床医学 | 574篇 |
内科学 | 2697篇 |
皮肤病学 | 83篇 |
神经病学 | 384篇 |
特种医学 | 163篇 |
外科学 | 1899篇 |
综合类 | 944篇 |
现状与发展 | 1篇 |
预防医学 | 818篇 |
眼科学 | 143篇 |
药学 | 433篇 |
中国医学 | 132篇 |
肿瘤学 | 452篇 |
出版年
2023年 | 205篇 |
2022年 | 1262篇 |
2021年 | 1163篇 |
2020年 | 679篇 |
2019年 | 698篇 |
2018年 | 702篇 |
2017年 | 503篇 |
2016年 | 250篇 |
2015年 | 291篇 |
2014年 | 487篇 |
2013年 | 494篇 |
2012年 | 345篇 |
2011年 | 385篇 |
2010年 | 325篇 |
2009年 | 268篇 |
2008年 | 248篇 |
2007年 | 283篇 |
2006年 | 217篇 |
2005年 | 216篇 |
2004年 | 225篇 |
2003年 | 230篇 |
2002年 | 150篇 |
2001年 | 91篇 |
2000年 | 69篇 |
1999年 | 84篇 |
1998年 | 42篇 |
1997年 | 39篇 |
1996年 | 51篇 |
1995年 | 35篇 |
1994年 | 42篇 |
1993年 | 19篇 |
1992年 | 16篇 |
1991年 | 13篇 |
1990年 | 18篇 |
1989年 | 20篇 |
1988年 | 24篇 |
1987年 | 12篇 |
1985年 | 30篇 |
1984年 | 26篇 |
1983年 | 32篇 |
1982年 | 30篇 |
1981年 | 37篇 |
1980年 | 42篇 |
1979年 | 24篇 |
1978年 | 26篇 |
1977年 | 19篇 |
1976年 | 16篇 |
1975年 | 15篇 |
1974年 | 13篇 |
1973年 | 12篇 |
排序方式: 共有10000条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Yann Auxéméry 《L'évolution Psychiatrique》2021,86(2):375-397
ObjectivesTrauma appears within the discourse of mentally injured people, materializing what we have recently defined as “post traumatic psycholinguistic syndrome” (SPLIT). Translating unspeakability, revival, and dissociation, this clinical entity associates three significant disturbances : traumatic anomia (missing words, reduction of the elocutionary flow, deictic gestures, etc.); linguistic repetitions (of words and phrases, verbal intrusions, echophrasias, etc.); and phrasal and discursive disorganization (incomplete sentences, tense discordance, dysfluence, lack of logical connectors, etc.). What are the causes of these semiological and psycholinguistic expressions? What are their psychological and/or neuropsychological processes? It is time to come up with a new concept intended to go beyond the previous models in order to better identify people suffering from post-traumatic mental disorders, to better organize and evaluate psychotherapeutic care, and also to help practitioners collaborate more effectively on these first two goals. But how to evoke, affirm, or speak out about the consequences of unspeakability? Nothing is more apparently contradictory than wanting to define the language void. How to account for the fractures of psychic trauma in discourse? Nothing is more uncertain than to try to organize the upheavals, the disorders caused by dissociation in language. Finally, how to specify the reiteration of the trauma using words and sentences without this modeling being dissociative or repetitive? Today, thanks to a psycholinguistic reading, essential dimensions of post-traumatic suffering, hitherto hidden, can be clarified. Why exactly does an event cause trauma in the life of a subject at a given moment in her/his existence? Why is a latency phase structured between the traumatic event and the return of reviviscences under the influence of a re-triggering factor? How to differentiate the notion of dissociation as a normal phenomenon from the so-called traumatic dissociation? How to explain the multiple clinical forms of post-traumatic psychological disorders?MethodsFrom Pierre's clinical history, we chronologically detail the structuring and the consequences of the signified reflection that are constitutive of the psychic trauma: the psycholinguistic tools here help to formulate a new etiopathogenic conception of trauma and its psychological consequences. Then, thanks to Jean's testimony, taking up the retrospective meaning of the clinical analysis from chronic repetition syndrome, we discover the phases of tension regarding signified knowledge, up to the network prior to the traumatic confrontation. Finally, illustrated by Karima's disorder, beyond depersonalization, we explain that the analysis of the disturbances of a singular signified network, and also of an attack on its familial and societal bases, testifies to individual and collective subjectivities.ResultsComing from the real world, and therefore also from the body, the stimuli made up of signals picked up by our senses combine to compose an event that can be objectified by its temporal, spatial, biological, and physico-chemical coordinates. These elements combine into a unit, which is then interpreted by the mind, which attributes meaning to this event, which has become subjective reality. But when the subject is not sufficiently prepared to be confronted with this meaning that appears to be in extreme contradiction with her/his previous cardinal networks of significations, it makes “too much sense:” this irreconcilable hyper-signified (that we call the traumatic signified) results in post-traumatic dissociation. In other words, it is an impossibility of concordance of a signified with certain systems of prior significations that constitutes the pathogenesis of the trauma; and a situation runs a greater risk of being traumatic when it contradicts, or, moreso, endangers some or all of the subject's cardinal meanings. This unbearable signified reflexively blocks the capacities of significations immediately pre- and post-trauma, then dissociates the psychic functions to varying degrees and intensities. The traumatic signified, rejected, becomes unattainable: the stimuli that led to its formation find themselves confined to the state of reviviscences, each replication of which attempts to cross the barrier of inconceivability. Limiting sensory compounds to their raw states without the possibility of representational integration, associative pathways remain blocked. The signifier is referred to a hypo-signifier confined to the infra-linguistic by its confusion with the referent, the “objective and material” components of the traumatic event. Dissociation is therefore only a symptomatic reaction, secondary to the trauma, which it reinforces once again by limiting any possibility of representing the trauma. This dissociation does not involve forgetting the traumatic signified but “protects” the adjacent networks of meanings from it as much as it “keeps” this hypersignified intact, therefore ultimately “protecting” it as well. The traumatic signified persists somewhere, and even ends up being found everywhere: when the networks of meanings turn out to be globally disturbed, the tightest links remain those of the traumatic hypersignified that ultimately governs all the networks of meanings.DiscussionOur insufficient knowledge prevents us from precisely qualifying the architecture of the signified idiosyncratic networks and their evolutionary capacities; we cannot predict, beforehand, the reaction of an individual confronted with a potentially psychotraumatic situation. For most clinical situations, we affirm that the psychological trauma occurs in a psychically healthy subject, that is, not suffering from any psychiatric illness or any obvious psychopathological conflict. Psychotherapy will make it possible to discover the signified, sometimes ancient, origins of a trauma occurring in a singular subject. How was this subjectivity constructed? Beyond individual subjectivity, the intensity of certain confrontations such as serious attacks or macrosocial catastrophes such as genocide, would seem to lead to psychological wounds in any individual, even at the scale of a population. While, throughout existence, each subject produces a system of significations in connection with a unique psychic construction, the latter persists – resulting from, and often remaining overseen by, the community essence of a base of signifying networks, which we call “societal subjectivity.” Here, the psychological trauma can correspond to an individual and “common” injury as a failure of a sharing, or of ancestral beliefs anchored in the collective memory, defining the culture. By the collapse of acquired certainties, the cognitive patterns transmitted by education, language, and everything that establishes one's belonging to a society, trauma shakes the networks of individual and group meanings. Horror has a higher traumatogenic risk, because it defeats the fundamentals of humankind, the foundations of a signified network common to a culture, or even to all cultures, to the human condition. This is the case with murder, rape, torture, wars, genocides. Testifying to an instinct for survival stemming from the biological foundations of every living being, the impossibility of “living death” appears to be anchored in our networks of meanings and is manifested by indescribability, traumatic as such: being deserted by the language collides with the condition of speaking. And yet, it remains possible to say something about it... As a path of progressive desocialization, the occasional loss of the community of language, followed by its lasting traumatic ravages, can be appeased by the reestablishment of a speech link, either within the mind of the subject alone, or promoted by the exchange with others, in a psychotherapeutic setting, for example.ConclusionWhere theoretical discourses have sometimes proved divisive, going beyond the symptoms of indescribability and dissociation, psychodynamic practice today offers to unite. Thanks to psycholinguistic listening, phenomena that have never been explained take on meaning: the singularity of traumatic perception, the chronology of disorders including the latency phase, factors that trigger reviviscences, and the diversity of chronic clinical forms. All these post-traumatic symptoms are consequential to a linguistic wound, a difficulty in accessing meaning, the undermining of two dimensions characterizing and constructing the human being. As much as it integrates extralinguistic determinants, if the traumatic signified is undoubtedly not only speech, language appears the optimal way to identify it as such, while in the same movement appeasing it. The traumatic hypersignified is discovered through clinical analysis and psychotherapy, through deferred action, through the attribution of meaning, through the retrospective reconstruction of an unstable “real,” through a changing narration eternally distancing itself from reviviscences. But what precisely are the mechanisms of effective therapies ? What are the intersubjective links called for in the discussion between patient and practitioner? Could the operations that we call “psychotherapy” be made up of mobilizations of the networks of meanings by speech acts? 相似文献
2.
3.
目的探讨单纯 Ilizarov 环形外固定技术治疗合并骨筋膜室综合征的胫骨平台骨折的疗效。方法2013 年 9 月—2017 年 3 月,收治 30 例合并骨筋膜室综合征的胫骨平台骨折患者,采用单纯 Ilizarov 环形外固定技术治疗。男 23 例,女 7 例;年龄 23~43 岁,平均 34.4 岁。致伤原因:交通事故伤 12 例,高处坠落伤 4 例,摔伤 8 例,重物砸伤 6 例。受伤至入院时间 1~12 h,平均 4.8 h。骨折 Schatzker 分型:Ⅱ型 1 例、Ⅲ型 3 例、Ⅳ型 10 例、Ⅴ型 7 例、Ⅵ型 9 例。30 例均因骨筋膜室综合征行切开减压;切开减压至手术时间为 10~15 d,平均 12.5 d。治疗后采用膝关节学会评分系统(KSS)及 Ilizarov 方法研究与应用协会(ASAMI)协议评价膝关节功能。结果手术时间 110~155 min,平均 123.1 min;术中出血量 100~500 mL,平均 245 mL;术后住院时间 3~5 d,平均 3.8 d。患者均获随访,随访时间 20~24 周,平均 22.7 周。除 2 例患者出现针道感染征象外,无其他并发症发生。X 线片复查显示骨折均愈合,愈合时间 10~20 周,平均 14.6 周。末次随访时,膝关节 KSS 临床评分总分为 70~95 分,平均 87.5 分;功能评分总分为 70~90 分,平均 79.0 分。参照 ASAMI 协议评价获优 24 例、良 3 例、可 2 例、差 1 例。结论对于合并骨筋膜室综合征的胫骨平台骨折,单纯 Ilizarov 环形外固定技术治疗后患者关节功能可以基本恢复且并发症少,是一项相对安全、有效的治疗方法。 相似文献
4.
5.
目的观察比较CO2点阵激光早期控制唇裂术后二期整复术术区瘢痕的临床疗效。方法治疗组为43例接受唇裂术后鼻唇畸形二期整复术的患者,早期采用CO2点阵激光治疗,对照组为70例曾接受一期唇裂手术的患者,对两组6个月后的瘢痕恢复情况进行比较;分析术后距离激光开始治疗时间的长短,性别两因素对激光治疗瘢痕疗效的差异。结果1)治疗组的疗效优于对照组(P<0.000 1),治疗组中显效和有效所组成的总有效率达90.7%;2)男女疗效差异无统计学意义(P=0.487),手术后1年内的患者,手术后距离开始瘢痕治疗的时间<3个月与≥3个月之间,疗效无明显统计学差异(P=0.055)。结论CO2点阵激光在唇裂二期整复术术后瘢痕的治疗中具有较为确切的疗效。且与患者的性别无明显相关性。手术后1年内的患者,术后距离开始瘢痕治疗的时间<3个月和≥3个月疗效无差异,因此在唇裂二期手术后的1年内早期对瘢痕进行干预可获得良好的效果。 相似文献
6.
背景与目的以免疫检查点抑制剂(immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICIs)为代表的免疫治疗越来越广泛地应用于肺癌治疗。然而,对于程序性死亡受体配体1(programmed cell death-ligand 1, PD-L1)高表达,即肿瘤比例评分(tumor proportion score, TPS)≥50%的晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC)患者,采用单纯免疫治疗还是免疫联合化疗在临床上仍存争议。本研究旨在评估PD-L1高表达的晚期NSCLC患者接受单纯免疫治疗与免疫联合化疗的疗效。方法本研究回顾性分析了49例PD-L1高表达晚期NSCLC患者的临床资料。PD-L1表达采用22C3抗体行免疫组化染色,按TPS判读PD-L1表达水平。比较不同临床特征分组患者的客观缓解率(objective response rate,ORR)和无进展生存时间(progression free survival, PFS)。结果免疫单药与免疫联合化疗组的ORR分别为47.1%(8/17)和43.8%(14/32),差异无统计学意义(P=0.825)。免疫单药与免疫联合化疗组的中位PFS分别为8.0个月和6.8个月,差异无统计学意义(P=0.502)。并对本组PD-L1高表达患者免疫治疗的预测因素进行了分析,结果显示,一线免疫治疗ORR(12/19, 63.2%)显著优于二线及以上免疫治疗(10/30, 33.3%),差异有统计学意义(P=0.041),二者间PFS无差异。年龄、性别、吸烟史、功能状态评分(performance status, PS)、病理类型、肿瘤大小、肿瘤淋巴结转移(tumor node metastasis, TNM)分期与ORR和PFS不相关。结论PD-L1高表达的晚期NSCLC患者接受免疫单药和免疫联合化疗的疗效相近。PD-L1高表达患者一线免疫治疗的ORR更佳。对此类人群的最佳治疗方案有待于前瞻性临床研究进一步探索。 相似文献
7.
目的比较骨填充网袋椎体成形术(Vesselplasty)与经皮椎体后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP)治疗 Kümmell 病的临床疗效。方法2015 年 1 月—2018 年 12 月收治 63 例 Kümmell 病患者,其中 28 例采用 Vesselplasty 治疗(Vesselplasty 组),35 例采用 PKP 治疗(PKP 组)。两组患者性别、年龄、病程、骨密度 T 值、骨折节段及术前疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)、伤椎前缘高度、后凸 Cobb 角等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。记录两组手术时间、术中透视时间、骨水泥注射量、骨水泥渗漏率、骨水泥弥散面积率和随访期间并发症发生情况,以及术前、术后 1 d、末次随访时 VAS 评分、ODI、伤椎前缘高度、后凸 Cobb 角。 结果两组患者均获随访,随访时间 12~36 个月,平均 24.2 个月。Vesselplasty 组手术时间、术中透视时间、骨水泥注射量、骨水泥弥散面积率均明显小于 PKP 组(P<0.05)。Vesselplasty 组骨水泥渗漏率(7.14%)明显低于 PKP 组(34.29%)(χ2=5.153,P=0.023)。两组患者术后 1 d 及末次随访时 VAS 评分、ODI、伤椎前缘高度、后凸 Cobb 角均较术前显著改善(P<0.05),术后两组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期间两组均未见术椎再塌陷,Vesselplasty 组邻椎骨折发生率(7.14%)与 PKP 组(14.29%)比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.243,P=0.622)。 结论Vesselplasty 和 PKP 治疗 Kümmell 病疗效相似,均能有效缓解患者疼痛症状,改善生活质量,部分恢复伤椎高度,矫正椎体后凸。但前者具有手术时间短、术中透视时间少、骨水泥渗漏少等优势。 相似文献
8.
目的探讨对先天性耳甲腔型小耳畸形患者行全扩张法全耳再造术后,利用残耳皮瓣改善再造耳颅耳沟的效果。方法回顾分析 2012 年 1 月—2017 年 1 月收治的 150 例先天性耳甲腔型小耳畸形患者。其中男 92 例,女 58 例;年龄 6.5~35.0 岁,平均 11.1 岁。采用一期扩张器埋置、二期全扩张法全耳再造术后发现上部颅耳沟浅显;于 6~12 个月后行三期再造耳修整。将残耳垂通过“Z”字改型转移以再造耳垂。在残耳上部作蒂在轮屏切迹的残耳上部皮瓣,弧形切开松解并加深上部颅耳沟,将上部残耳皮瓣向颅耳沟创面旋转推进缝合以覆盖创面;将带皮下组织蒂的残耳软骨组织瓣插入支架底部形成的腔隙内,并缝合固定,以增加支架的高度;耳甲腔区其余残耳皮瓣用以覆盖耳甲腔创面。结果术后拆线时 1 例患儿皮瓣远端出现直径约 0.5 cm 的表皮水疱,经换药 2 周后愈合;其余患者皮瓣成活良好。患者均获随访,随访时间 6~12 个月,平均 9.6 个月。再造耳上部颅耳沟均明显加深,再造耳支架高度不同程度增加,双耳对称性佳,耳甲腔无明显挛缩变小,再造耳外观满意。再造耳上部表面毛发明显减少,耳周发际线上移。结论采用耳甲腔型小耳畸形的残耳皮瓣及残耳软骨瓣转移,不仅可加深颅耳沟,而且可增加上部支架的高度,术后颅耳沟变形较轻,再造耳与正常耳廓的对称性更佳。 相似文献
9.
10.