Subjects admitted 12 months or more previously to two child and adolescent psychiatric units in New Zealand and the United States with a diagnosis of non-organic, nonautistic psychosis, were contacted and those who received a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia were studied (n = 33 [New Zealand] and n = 24 [United States]). Premorbid and first-episode data were obtained from the admission record using global clinical measures of moderate reliability, outcome diagnosis and status by interviews, and professional and family reports. Mean ages at onset were 13.9 (New Zealand) and 15.6 (United States). Premorbid and clinical features resembled those in adult schizophrenia, though there were probable quantitative differences. At outcome (mean interval = 4 years) few subjects were symptom-free or independent, and mean global assessment of functioning had fallen from 55 to 40. Outcome was much worse in schizophrenia than bipolar disorder. Despite a 59 percent attrition rate and higher rates of initial misdiagnosis in the United States, and some demographic differences, New Zealand and United States samples resembled each other clinically and in outcome. Initial misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder as schizophrenia was not due to minimizing mood symptoms, which were common in both disorders. Within this age range (mostly 11-17), age at onset had only minor effects. Outcome was best predicted by premorbid personality.
IMPORTANCECourtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown.OBJECTIVE To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship.RESULTS A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.
In the setting of an abdominal venous injury, REBOA improved hemodynamics and lengthened survival time. Blood loss was similar between groups but the rate of bleeding was markedly decreased with REBOA. REBOA appears effective for central venous injuries and provides a sustained period of stabilization and window for surgical intervention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.