The Experts below are selected from a list of 441591 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rebecca J. Stratton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
self screening for malnutrition with an Electronic Version of the malnutrition universal screening tool must in hospital outpatients concurrent validity preference and ease of use
British Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Abbie L. Cawood, Emily R Walters, Sarah K.e. Sharp, Marinos Elia, Rebecca J. StrattonAbstract:Self-screening using an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an Electronic Version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and Electronic Versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between Electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based Version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the Electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper Version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The Electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.
-
'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use.
The British journal of nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Abbie L. Cawood, Emily R Walters, Sarah K.e. Sharp, Marinos Elia, Rebecca J. StrattonAbstract:Self-screening using an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an Electronic Version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and Electronic Versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between Electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P
Bridget A Juniper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development and validation of an Electronic Version of the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire
Allergy, 2007Co-Authors: Elizabeth F Juniper, Bente Riis, Bridget A JuniperAbstract:Background: As clinicians and pharmaceutical companies move from paper Versions of health status questionnaires to Electronic Versions, it cannot be assumed that adaptations to other media will produce valid data. Aims: The aims of this study were to (1) adapt the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ(S); standardized Version], for the Palm Treo 650, (2) test the device for ease and accuracy of understanding and (3) examine the validity of the Electronic Version by comparing it with the original paper Version of the RQLQ(S). Methods: Seventy adults with current rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms completed the Electronic and paper Versions of the RQLQ(S). They were randomized to complete either the paper or the Electronic Version first. After a 2-h break, they completed the other Version. Results: Concordance between paper and Electronic Versions for the overall RQLQ(S) score was acceptable with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 and there was no evidence of bias (P = 0.13). Concordance for the seven individual domains ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. A small but significant bias was observed in the activity and sleep domains (P = 0.02). Completion times were quicker with paper (4.1 vs 4.9 min, P < 0.0001). About 51% of patients preferred Electronic, 17% preferred paper and 31% had no preference. Conclusions: This Electronic Version of the RQLQ(S) was easy for patients to use and the concordance between paper and this Version on the Palm Treo 650 provides evidence of the validity of this Electronic Version.
-
Development and validation of an Electronic Version of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.
Allergy, 2007Co-Authors: Elizabeth F Juniper, Bente Riis, Bridget A JuniperAbstract:Background: As clinicians and pharmaceutical companies move from paper Versions of health status questionnaires to Electronic Versions, it cannot be assumed that adaptations to other media will produce valid data. Aims: The aims of this study were to (1) adapt the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ(S); standardized Version], for the Palm Treo 650, (2) test the device for ease and accuracy of understanding and (3) examine the validity of the Electronic Version by comparing it with the original paper Version of the RQLQ(S). Methods: Seventy adults with current rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms completed the Electronic and paper Versions of the RQLQ(S). They were randomized to complete either the paper or the Electronic Version first. After a 2-h break, they completed the other Version. Results: Concordance between paper and Electronic Versions for the overall RQLQ(S) score was acceptable with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 and there was no evidence of bias (P = 0.13). Concordance for the seven individual domains ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. A small but significant bias was observed in the activity and sleep domains (P = 0.02). Completion times were quicker with paper (4.1 vs 4.9 min, P
M. L. Hazen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Electronic Version of the third volume of the general catalogue of variable stars with improved coordinates
Astronomy Letters, 2006Co-Authors: N. N. Samus, O. V. Durlevich, A. V. Zharova, E. V. Kazarovets, E. N. Pastukhova, N. N. Kireeva, D. B. Williams, M. L. HazenAbstract:We present a new Electronic Version of the second volume of the fourth edition of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS), which contains data on 13480 variable stars in the constellations Cygnus-Orion (the order of constellations in the Catalogue follows the Latin alphabet). The new Version takes into account the Name Lists of Variable Stars from no. 67 to 76 for the same constellations. The main distinctive feature of the new Version is that it contains improved equatorial J2000.0 coordinates for 13446 stars (including those for 5052 stars with an allowance made for proper motions), based on the identifications with positional catalogs using finding charts, as well as on our new measurements. We searched for a number of stars on original plates from the collections of several observatories and using digital sky survey images. The new Version also includes a file of remarks to the second and third GCVS volumes. Apart from a complete update of the positional information, we took into account several corrections that were found to be necessary after the publication of the second GCVS volume (1985). We present a list of references to new Internet resources.
-
An Electronic Version of volume I of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars with improved coordinates
Astronomy Letters, 2002Co-Authors: N. N. Samus, V. P. Goranskii, O. V. Durlevich, A. V. Zharova, E. V. Kazarovets, E. N. Pastukhova, M. L. Hazen, T. M. TsvetkovaAbstract:We present a new Electronic Version of the first volume of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS), fourth edition, which contains data on 10558 variable stars in Andromeda-Crux (the constellations are ordered in the Catalog according to the Latin alphabet). This Version incorporates the name lists of variable stars from no. 67 to no. 76 for the same constellations. The main distinctive feature of the new Version is that it provides improved equatorial J2000.0 coordinates for 10349 stars (including those for 4587 stars corrected for proper motions). These are based on identifications with positional catalogs using finding charts and on our new measurements. We searched for a number of stars on original plates from the plate collections of several observatories. The Version also includes a file of remarks to the first GCVS volume and a preliminary Version of the file of bibliographic references to the entire fourth edition of the GCVS. Apart from a complete update of the positional information, the new Version incorporates all the other corrections that were found to be necessary after the first GCVS volume was published (1985).
Abbie L. Cawood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
self screening for malnutrition with an Electronic Version of the malnutrition universal screening tool must in hospital outpatients concurrent validity preference and ease of use
British Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Abbie L. Cawood, Emily R Walters, Sarah K.e. Sharp, Marinos Elia, Rebecca J. StrattonAbstract:Self-screening using an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an Electronic Version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and Electronic Versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between Electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based Version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the Electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper Version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The Electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.
-
'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use.
The British journal of nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Abbie L. Cawood, Emily R Walters, Sarah K.e. Sharp, Marinos Elia, Rebecca J. StrattonAbstract:Self-screening using an Electronic Version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an Electronic Version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and Electronic Versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between Electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P
N. N. Samus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Electronic Version of the third volume of the general catalogue of variable stars with improved coordinates
Astronomy Letters, 2006Co-Authors: N. N. Samus, O. V. Durlevich, A. V. Zharova, E. V. Kazarovets, E. N. Pastukhova, N. N. Kireeva, D. B. Williams, M. L. HazenAbstract:We present a new Electronic Version of the second volume of the fourth edition of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS), which contains data on 13480 variable stars in the constellations Cygnus-Orion (the order of constellations in the Catalogue follows the Latin alphabet). The new Version takes into account the Name Lists of Variable Stars from no. 67 to 76 for the same constellations. The main distinctive feature of the new Version is that it contains improved equatorial J2000.0 coordinates for 13446 stars (including those for 5052 stars with an allowance made for proper motions), based on the identifications with positional catalogs using finding charts, as well as on our new measurements. We searched for a number of stars on original plates from the collections of several observatories and using digital sky survey images. The new Version also includes a file of remarks to the second and third GCVS volumes. Apart from a complete update of the positional information, we took into account several corrections that were found to be necessary after the publication of the second GCVS volume (1985). We present a list of references to new Internet resources.
-
An Electronic Version of volume I of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars with improved coordinates
Astronomy Letters, 2002Co-Authors: N. N. Samus, V. P. Goranskii, O. V. Durlevich, A. V. Zharova, E. V. Kazarovets, E. N. Pastukhova, M. L. Hazen, T. M. TsvetkovaAbstract:We present a new Electronic Version of the first volume of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS), fourth edition, which contains data on 10558 variable stars in Andromeda-Crux (the constellations are ordered in the Catalog according to the Latin alphabet). This Version incorporates the name lists of variable stars from no. 67 to no. 76 for the same constellations. The main distinctive feature of the new Version is that it provides improved equatorial J2000.0 coordinates for 10349 stars (including those for 4587 stars corrected for proper motions). These are based on identifications with positional catalogs using finding charts and on our new measurements. We searched for a number of stars on original plates from the plate collections of several observatories. The Version also includes a file of remarks to the first GCVS volume and a preliminary Version of the file of bibliographic references to the entire fourth edition of the GCVS. Apart from a complete update of the positional information, the new Version incorporates all the other corrections that were found to be necessary after the first GCVS volume was published (1985).
