This is my personal memories concerning the Nordic periodical Acta Ophthalmologica in the period 1970-88. Poul Braendstrup was scientific secretary for Acta 1950-70 and chief editor 1970-75. His many important scientific works and enormous work for Acta is described, but also personal topics are mentioned. Acta meetings in the Danish Ophthalmol Society (DOS) and in the Nordic ophtalmol. Congresses are discussed. A referee-system is established from 1976, but with political contra scientific motives. Only a few papers arrived to Acta. A catastrophe in 1978 is mentioned. The new secretary Ingelise Truberg did an enormous work for the next ten years. Erik Jørgensen (1928-90) was our printer, and from 1975 our idealistic publisher after Munksgaard. The economy became better and the number of papers of high quality increased. The relationship to the new Nordic periodical Oftalmolog was discussed in 1982.
The objective of this decision support synthesis was to identify and review published and grey literature and to conduct stakeholder interviews to (1) describe the distinguishing characteristics of clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) role definitions and competencies relevant to Canadian contexts, (2) identify the key barriers and facilitators for the effective development and utilization of CNS and NP roles and (3) inform the development of evidence-based recommendations for the individual, organizational and system supports required to better integrate CNS and NP roles into the Canadian healthcare system and advance the delivery of nursing and patient care services in Canada. Four types of advanced practice nurses (APNs) were the focus: CNSs, primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs), acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) and a blended CNS/NP role. We worked with a multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional advisory board that helped identify documents and key informant interviewees, develop interview questions and formulate implications from our findings. We included 468 published and unpublished English- and French-language papers in a scoping review of the literature. We conducted interviews in English and French with 62 Canadian and international key informants (APNs, healthcare administrators, policy makers, nursing regulators, educators, physicians and other team members). We conducted four focus groups with a total of 19 APNs, educators, administrators and policy makers. A multidisciplinary roundtable convened by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation formulated evidence-informed policy and practice recommendations based on the synthesis findings. This paper forms the foundation for this special issue, which contains 10 papers summarizing different dimensions of our synthesis. Here, we summarize the synthesis methods and the recommendations formulated at the roundtable.
To assess the publication volume of Canadian ophthalmology departments over a 5-year period, 2005-2009.
Systematic review of the literature.
MEDLINE was searched for papers published from 2005 to 2009 where the designated affiliation corresponded to a Canadian ophthalmology department. The papers were sorted by year, university, and study design. A total impact score (the impact factor of the journal multiplied by the number of papers published in that journal per year) was also calculated for each university.
In the 5-year period there was an increasing trend in the total number of published ophthalmology papers. The University of Toronto had the highest number of published papers (224), followed by the University of British Columbia (143) and McGill University (120). The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology published the most papers, followed by Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. The most frequent study design category was basic science research and a total of 11 different randomized controlled trials were retrieved.
The publication volume of Canadian ophthalmology researchers increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 with larger institutions accounting for the majority of published papers. Like researchers in other countries, Canadian ophthalmology researchers preferred to publish in domestic journals.
Comment In: Can J Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;46(5):440-1; author reply 44121995990
In Norway, very little data are available on the relation between the total number of research projects on the clinical development of drugs that have been started, the number of these projects in which the research phase has been completed and the number of projects for which results have been published. The aim of this study was to determine the number of projects in which the research phase had been completed and the results published.
Information on research projects carried out on the clinical development of drugs during the year 2000 was obtained from the archives of the Norwegian Research Ethical Committee (REC) and subsequently analysed.
The final analysis revealed that 245 research projects on the clinical development of drugs had been started in 2000. Of these, 178 (73%) completed the research phase as planned. The results of 131 (54%) of these projects were published in a scientific journal, and another 34 (14%) were reported as a congress abstract or as report to a sponsor; 80 (33%) were not published at all. Industrial sponsors seemed to promote both the completion of the research process and the publication of results in scientific journals.
The year 2000 provides a symbolic opportunity to assess the past initiatives in anesthesia research. As in many other fields, medical research has benefited from utilizing computerized data bases to facilitate enumerating areas of interest. We have created a baseline survey of past research in the fields of anesthesia, anesthetics, analgesia, and analgesics to highlight Canadian studies.
The survey was undertaken using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (MEDLARS) medical literature archive for the years 1995 through 1999. The principal categories and sub-categories of MEDLARS' anesthesia classifications were counted for 70 countries contributing to the archive.
Canadian contributions ranged from 141 (1992) to 185 (1999) and represented annually 3% of the world total in the anesthesia categories. The greatest number of studies (30-38%) were about adults aged 19 to 44 yr, and there were between 4% and 14% more studies of females than males. "Pharmacology" and "therapeutic use" were the most frequent topics, lidocaine, fentanyl, and propofol were the most studied anesthetics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, opium, morphine, and fentanyl were the most studied analgesics. Among the types of studies, those classified as "quality of health care" occurred most frequently (16%). Canadian trends closely follow world trends.
The collected counts provide a comprehensive overview of research trends for the past five years.