GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: British Journal of Surgery, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 106, No. 2 ( 2019-01-08), p. e103-e112
    Abstract: The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89·6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60·6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0·17, 95 per cent c.i. 0·14 to 0·21, P & lt; 0·001) or low (363 of 860, 42·2 per cent; OR 0·08, 0·07 to 0·10, P & lt; 0·001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference −9·4 (95 per cent c.i. −11·9 to −6·9) per cent; P & lt; 0·001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12·1 (+7·0 to +17·3) per cent; P & lt; 0·001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0·60, 0·50 to 0·73; P & lt; 0·001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0007-1323 , 1365-2168
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006309-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Diseases of the Esophagus, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 33, No. 4 ( 2020-04-15)
    Abstract: Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: & gt;500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or  & gt;100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air–fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’ of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: ‘not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘quite a bit’, or ‘very much’, generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1120-8694 , 1442-2050
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2004949-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Springer Science and Business Media LLC ; 2015
    In:  Water, Air, & Soil Pollution Vol. 226, No. 9 ( 2015-9)
    In: Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 226, No. 9 ( 2015-9)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0049-6979 , 1573-2932
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1479824-4
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 120499-3
    SSG: 12
    SSG: 13
    SSG: 21
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    African Journals Online (AJOL) ; 2007
    In:  Journal of Civil Engineering Research and Practice Vol. 3, No. 2 ( 2007-04-22)
    In: Journal of Civil Engineering Research and Practice, African Journals Online (AJOL), Vol. 3, No. 2 ( 2007-04-22)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1729-5769
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: African Journals Online (AJOL)
    Publication Date: 2007
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Canadian Science Publishing ; 2011
    In:  Canadian Journal of Animal Science Vol. 91, No. 1 ( 2011-03), p. 1-35
    In: Canadian Journal of Animal Science, Canadian Science Publishing, Vol. 91, No. 1 ( 2011-03), p. 1-35
    Abstract: Hristov, A. N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister T. A., Ndegwa, P. and Rotz, A. 2011. Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 1–35. Ammonia emitted from animal feeding operations is an environmental and human health hazard, contributing to eutrophication of surface waters and nitrate contamination of ground waters, soil acidity, and fine particulate matter formation. It may also contribute to global warming through nitrous oxide formation. Along with these societal concerns, ammonia emission is a net loss of manure fertilizer value to the producer. A significant portion of cattle manure nitrogen, primarily from urinary urea, is converted to ammonium and eventually lost to the atmosphere as ammonia. Determining ammonia emissions from cattle operations is complicated by the multifaceted nature of the factors regulating ammonia volatilization, such as manure management, ambient temperature, wind speed, and manure composition and pH. Approaches to quantify ammonia emissions include micrometeorological methods, mass balance accounting and enclosures. Each method has its advantages, disadvantages and appropriate application. It is also of interest to determine the ammonia emitting potential of manure (AEP) independent of environmental factors. The ratio of nitrogen to non-volatile minerals (phosphorus, potassium, ash) or nitrogen isotopes ratio in manure has been suggested as a useful indicator of AEP. Existing data on ammonia emission factors and flux rates are extremely variable. For dairy farms, emission factors from 0.82 to 250 g ammonia per cow per day have been reported, with an average of 59 g per cow per day (n=31). Ammonia flux rates for dairy farms averaged 1.03 g m −2 h −1 (n=24). Ammonia losses are significantly greater from beef feedlots, where emission factors average 119 g per animal per day (n=9) with values as high as 280 g per animal per day. Ammonia flux rate for beef feedlots averaged 0.174 g m −2 h −1 (n=12). Using nitrogen mass balance approaches, daily ammonia nitrogen losses of 25 to 50% of the nitrogen excreted in manure have been estimated for dairy cows and feedlot cattle. Practices to mitigate ammonia emissions include reducing excreted N (particularly urinary N), acidifying ammonia sources, or binding ammonium to a substrate. Reducing crude protein concentration in cattle diets and ruminal protein degradability are powerful tools for reducing N excretion, AEP, and whole-farm ammonia emissions. Reducing dietary protein can also benefit the producer by reducing feed cost. These interventions, however, have to be balanced with the risk of lost production. Manure treatment techniques that reduce volatile N species (e.g., urease inhibition, pH reduction, nitrification-denitrification) are also effective for mitigating ammonia emissions. Another option for reducing ammonia emissions is capture and treatment of released ammonia. Examples in the latter category include biofilters, permeable and impermeable covers, and manure incorporation into the soil for crop or pasture production. Process-level simulation of ammonia formation and emission provides a useful tool for estimating emissions over a wide range of production practices and evaluating the potential benefits of mitigation strategies. Reducing ammonia emissions from dairy and beef cattle operations is critical to achieving environmentally sustainable animal production that will benefit producers and society at large.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-3984 , 1918-1825
    Language: English
    Publisher: Canadian Science Publishing
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2016977-2
    SSG: 22
    SSG: 12
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Wiley ; 2010
    In:  Journal of Environmental Quality Vol. 39, No. 5 ( 2010-09), p. 1807-1812
    In: Journal of Environmental Quality, Wiley, Vol. 39, No. 5 ( 2010-09), p. 1807-1812
    Abstract: About 80% of dairy cattle N intake is excreted in urine and feces. Urinary–N is about 75% urea, whereas fecal–N is mostly organic. Urinary–N (urea) can only be volatilized when it is hydrolyzed to ammonia (NH 3 ) in a process catalyzed by urease, which is predominantly found in feces. Minimizing contact between urine and feces may be an effective approach to reducing urea hydrolysis and subsequent NH 3 emissions. Previous studies have reported 5 to 99% NH 3 emissions mitigation within barns from separation of feces and urine. The objective of this study was to compare NH 3 emissions mitigation via separation of urine and feces in postcollection storage to a conventional scrape manure handling method where urine and feces are comingled. Laboratory scale studies were conducted to evaluate NH 3 emissions from simulated postcollection storage of three waste streams: (i) idealistically separated feces and urine (no contact between urine and feces), (ii) realistically separated urine and feces (limited contact of urine and feces), and (iii) conventionally scraped manure (control). From the results of these studies, NH 3 losses ranking in descending order was as follows: aggregate of realistically separated waste streams (3375.9 ± 54.8 mg), aggregate of idealistically separated urine and feces (3047.0 ± 738.0 mg), and scrape manure (2034.0 ± 106.5 mg), respectively. Therefore, on the basis of these results, the extra effort of separating the waste streams would not enhance mitigation of NH 3 losses from postcollection storage of the separated waste streams compared to the conventional scrape manure collection system.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0047-2425 , 1537-2537
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 120525-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2050469-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) ; 2011
    In:  Transactions of the ASABE Vol. 54, No. 3 ( 2011), p. 1119-1126
    In: Transactions of the ASABE, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Vol. 54, No. 3 ( 2011), p. 1119-1126
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2151-0040
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
    Publication Date: 2011
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) ; 2006
    In:  Transactions of the ASABE Vol. 49, No. 1 ( 2006), p. 157-165
    In: Transactions of the ASABE, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Vol. 49, No. 1 ( 2006), p. 157-165
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2151-0040
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
    Publication Date: 2006
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) ; 2003
    In:  Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 46, No. 3 ( 2003)
    In: Transactions of the ASAE, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Vol. 46, No. 3 ( 2003)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2151-0059
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
    Publication Date: 2003
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) ; 2005
    In:  Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 48, No. 4 ( 2005), p. 1575-1583
    In: Transactions of the ASAE, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Vol. 48, No. 4 ( 2005), p. 1575-1583
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2151-0059
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
    Publication Date: 2005
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...