Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Reference Books”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources

A critical gaze and wistful glance at Handbook histories of social psychology: did the successive accounts by Gordon Allport and successors historiographically succeed?

Gordon Allport's account of the development of social psychology in the 1954 Handbook of Social Psychology became, de facto, a standard or official historical reference for researchers and apprentices. His history also provided the field's ontological center point with a definition of social psychology that would become predominant. The revised and updated chapter appeared posthumously in 1968, was then reprinted (lightly edited) in 1985, but was removed from the 1998 Handbook. In 1966, Allport prepared a parallel evaluation of six decades of the history of social psychology, for a conference on graduate education in social psychology. This paper was critical of "elaborate mendacious experimentation" and ended with a plea for an interdisciplinary cross-cultivation. It was rarely cited. Ironically, it was Allport's "official" history, his justificatory Handbook account, that often was used for graduate mentoring rather than the more critical history, specifically written to address issues of graduate education. Other "official" Handbook historical chapters that succeeded Allport's displayed less breadth of geographical and transdisciplinary coverage and offered a shorter temporal, more presentist, and more selective personalist historical perspective. In contrast to more contextualist accounts, these Handbook chapters are constrained in a number of ways that raise questions about the success, functions, and professional consequences of such "official" histories, and who should write them.

Historiography↗

Whig and anti-whig histories- and other curiosities of social psychology.

In successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology (Lindzey, 1954), the focus of the history of the field shifted from the substantive ideas of nineteenth-century thinkers to the successful emergence of a psychological experimental social psychology in the twentieth. Countering this whiggish account, the dominant themes in the present issue involve attempts to portray two parallel paradigm shifts: from a "social" to an "asocial" social psychology, and from a broad-ranging theoretical-philosophical subject to a narrow experimental (psychological) science-changes initiated by Floyd Allport. But such a formulation may be called into question as another version of retrospective history-with inverted, anti-Whig valuations.

Historiography↗

The overdosage and/or poisoning information gap.

The availability of poisoning information from the pharmaceutical industry was evaluated. Manufacturers of the top 50 drugs were surveyed. Information that was received was classified by established criteria for evaluation. Compendia on poisoning information was evaluated based on 11 components ranging from toxicity information to information available in the PDR. Additional information on emergency telephone numbers for after-hours service was accumulated. The results showed that much of the information available is incomplete and/or outdated. A concerted effort to establish a central source for manufacturers' poison information needs to be begun.

Drug Industry↗

[The impact factor--a reliable sciento-metric parameter?].

With shortage of research funds and increasing competition for medical posts, performance indicators and control instruments are being looked for in order to be able to allot research funds and make professorial appointments in relation to scientific performance. Incomprehensibly for many, the impact factor has become the decisive scientometric indicator at German universities despite of substantial systematic limitations. The impact factor is derived from the journal citation reports. Its basis of calculation entails the following problems: the editorial board of the private Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) decides on whether a journal is to be classified as a source journal. The citation index of all journals is calculated from their citations alone. Crucial means of influencing the impact factor result from self-citations and citation groups in these source journals. Languages other than English and other than Latin alphabets are appreciably disadvantaged by the citation index, which is why for example despite its international significance the rapid development of the osteosynthesis technique in German speaking countries went unnoticed by British and American orthopedic surgeons and scientists. The articles on postgraduate training necessarily published by clinicians in the respective language of their country are not cited because the addresses of such publications do not engage in research. Clinical disciplines (especially highly specialized disciplines such as trauma and hand surgery) thus attain appreciably lower impact factors for their journals than basic disciplines and interdisciplinary clinical sectors which lead the ranking of journals. The period covered in calculating the impact factor is only 2 years. Very modern and widely disseminated organs of publication with a short information halflife are favored. From the 10 objectively most often cited and most important journals for the scientific society, only 2 are to be found amongst those with the highest impact factor. The impact front-runner from 1995 has a very low absolute number of citations. The impact factor provides limited statistical information on a journal in its special field. Using it for this purpose presupposes knowledge of rules, limitations and constraints. Its uncritical use as a general currency of science is fundamentally unscientific. In addition, this leads to the specialists in the field knowledge of the universities being disregarded in favor of a pseudo-objective parameter determined elsewhere. At all events, correction factors for the impact factor have to be applied in respect to the different disciplines. The faculties should reach agreement on relevant (also on German language) organs of publication. The impact factor is not suitable as an indicator of the research activity and the quality of a researcher or an institution. Besides careful human judgement and other classical methods of decision making, the Science Citation Index can contribute to the individual evaluation.

Bibliometrics↗

Standard method of diagnosis versus use of a computer database in the evaluation of skeletal dysplasias.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare reference textbooks and the computer database, OSSUM, for accuracy and ease of use in the diagnosis of skeletal dysplasias. Materials and methods. Twenty cases of clinically and and radiologically established skeletal dysplasias were evaluated as unknowns by four pediatric radiologists. Readers 1 and 2 evaluated group A (10 cases) using reference texts and group B (10 cases) using OSSUM. Readers 3 and 4 evaluated group B using reference texts. The radiologists independently listed their roentgenographic findings, the top three diagnoses, confidence level, difficulty level, and time spent on each case. RESULTS: The correct diagnosis was made in 68% of both the reference text cases and the OSSUM cases. Difficulty level was significantly higher (3.5 vs 2.9, P = 0.0013) and confidence significantly lower (3.3 vs. 2.3, P = 0.0001) when using OSSUM. Average time spent on cases was 25 min with references and 30 min with OSSUM (P > 0.05). However, there was a decrease in both the time (38 min vs 23 min, P = 0.05) and the difficulty (3.9 vs 3.1, P = 0.001) between the first five and the last five cases. The composite of four readers correctly identified 90% of the skeletal dysplasias when the results of both methods were combined. CONCLUSIONS: In the ability to reach a correct diagnosis, no difference was detected between the OSSUM and reference texts methods. The increased time necessary, greater difficulty and decreased confidence levels with OSSUM are expected to improve with increasing program familiarity. Use of both textbooks and the database was complementary.

Bone Diseases, Developmental↗

An evaluation of selected herbal reference texts and comparison to published reports of adverse herbal events.

OBJECTIVE: There has been a recent proliferation of medical reference texts intended to guide practitioners whose patients use herbal therapies. We systematically assessed six herbal reference texts to evaluate the information they contain on herbal toxicity. METHODS: We selected six major herbal references published from 1996 to 2000 to evaluate the adequacy of their toxicological information in light of published adverse events. To identify herbs most relevant to toxicology, we reviewed herbal-related calls to our regional California Poison Control System, San Francisco division (CPCS-SF) in 1998 and identified the 12 herbs (defined as botanical dietary supplements) most frequently involved in these CPCS-SF referrals. We searched Medline (1966 to 2000) to identify published reports of adverse effects potentially related to these same 12 herbs. We scored each herbal reference text on the basis of information inclusiveness for the target 12 herbs, with a maximal overall score of 3. RESULTS: The herbs, identified on the basis of CPCS-SF call frequency were: St John's wort, ma huang, echinacea, guarana, ginkgo, ginseng, valerian, tea tree oil, goldenseal, arnica, yohimbe and kava kava. The overall herbal reference scores ranged from 2.2 to 0.4 (median 1.1). The Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database received the highest overall score and was the most complete and useful reference source. All of the references, however, lacked sufficient information on management of herbal medicine overdose, and several had incorrect overdose management guidelines that could negatively impact patient care. CONCLUSION: Current herbal reference texts do not contain sufficient information for the assessment and management of adverse health effects of botanical therapies.

Drug Evaluation↗

Off-label and unlicensed use of antidotes in paediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of unlicensed and off-label antidotes among medicines recommended by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) for children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We considered 77 antidotes from the "IPCS List of antidotes and other useful agents in the treatment of human poisoning" (1996 version). Primary reference sources used were the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) and package inserts. Antidotes were assessed for off-label (outside of the term of product license) and unlicensed use in children. RESULTS: Our data show that only 31 (40.3%) of 77 recommended antidotes correspond to the demands of licensing systems for use in children. The rest (46 or 59.7%) are either off-label (32 or 41.5%) or unlicensed (14 or 18.2%). Five antidotes are off-label for two reasons; thus the total number of off-label use (37) is greater than the number of such drugs (32). Inappropriate age is the main reason for use outside the stipulations of the product license (24 of 77 antidotes or 31.2%), whereas different indication and route occur in 11 (14.3%) and 2 (2.6%) antidotes, respectively. The 14 unlicensed antidotes have been used only in animal experiments or in a small number of patients in certain poison centres. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty percent of antidotes and other useful agents in the poison treatment of children do not correspond to the demands of licensing systems. Drugs used in the treatment of poisoned children, as well as adults, must be evaluated scientifically.

Adolescent↗

Julia Bell and the Treasury of Human Inheritance.

The Treasury of Human Inheritance represents the most extensive, and one of the earliest series of documentations and analyses of human genetic disorders. Published between 1909 and 1958, from The Galton Laboratory, London, most of the numerous sections were written by Julia Bell, who represents a key figure in the development of human and medical genetics. Her combination of mathematical training, genetic knowledge and clinical expertise yielded numerous important insights into human inheritance first appearing in the Treasury; it remains a valuable scientific as well as an historical record of the genetics of a range of important inherited disorders.

Genetics, Medical↗

DSM-III and DSM-III-R: what are American psychiatrists using and why?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether American psychiatrists have switched from DSM-III to DSM-III-R as their primary diagnostic reference, and to examine what factors predicted the continued use of DSM-III. In 1989, we conducted a mail survey of practicing psychiatrists (N = 454), residency program directors (N = 128), residents (N = 1,331), and researchers (N = 196) regarding their training in, use of, and opinions about DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Approximately 30% of practitioners continued to use DSM-III as their primary diagnostic reference, although this was less frequently true of researchers and residents. In none of the four groups did a majority believe that DSM-III-R was needed, despite the fact that the majority of each group indicated that it was an improvement over DSM-III. The most commonly perceived reasons for publishing DSM-III-R were that it corrected problems with DSM-III and new research indicated changes were warranted. Compared with DSM-III-R users, DSM-III users more frequently believed that the 7-year interval between the two editions was too short, that DSM-III-R was not needed, and that the revised manual was little better than the original. Thus, 2 years after the publication of DSM-III-R 90% of psychiatrists were using DSM-III-R, at least in part, although a substantial minority continued to use DSM-III as their primary diagnostic manual. Even among DSM-III-R users, many believed that the revised manual was not needed. The perceived need for DSM-III-R was associated with the reasons ascribed to its publication; therefore, acceptance of DSM-IV may be partially a function of how its development is promoted and justified. That nearly one third of a random sample of practicing psychiatrists continued to use DSM-III supports concerns that the publication of DSM manuals every 6 or 7 years will divide the psychiatric community into subgroups using different diagnostic criteria.

Adult↗