3 datasets found
  1. f

    S1 Data -

    • figshare.com
    • plos.figshare.com
    xlsx
    Updated Aug 24, 2023
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Xiao-Yu Li; Xuan Liao; Jia Lin; Chang-Jun Lan; Qing-Qing Tan (2023). S1 Data - [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289033.s001
    Explore at:
    xlsxAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Aug 24, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    PLOS ONE
    Authors
    Xiao-Yu Li; Xuan Liao; Jia Lin; Chang-Jun Lan; Qing-Qing Tan
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    PurposeTo investigate the effect of the optional biometric parameters lens thickness (LT) and center corneal thickness (CCT) in the Kane formula on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.MethodsA cross-sectional study included consecutive cataract patients who received uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation from May to September 2022 were enrolled. The ocular biometric parameters were obtained using IOLMaster 700 and then inputted into online Kane formula calculator. The IOL power was calculated for targeting emmetropia and compared between groups: not omitting (NO) group, omitting LT and CCT (OLC) group, omitting LT (OL) group and omitting CCT (OC) group. Further, according to the axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and mean keratometry (Km), the eyes were divided into three subgroups, respectively.Results1005 eyes of 1005 consecutive patients were included. There was no significant difference in IOL power between NO group and OC group (P = 0.064), and the median absolute difference (MedAD) was 0.05D. The IOL power in NO group showed significant differences from OLC group and OL group respectively (P

  2. I

    Italy IT: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of...

    • ceicdata.com
    Updated Oct 15, 2023
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    CEICdata.com (2023). Italy IT: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate [Dataset]. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/italy/poverty/it-survey-mean-consumption-or-income-per-capita-bottom-40-of-population-annualized-average-growth-rate
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Oct 15, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    CEICdata.com
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Time period covered
    Dec 1, 2014
    Area covered
    Italy
    Description

    Italy IT: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data was reported at -2.130 % in 2015. Italy IT: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data is updated yearly, averaging -2.130 % from Dec 2015 (Median) to 2015, with 1 observations. Italy IT: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Italy – Table IT.World Bank: Poverty. The growth rate in the welfare aggregate of the bottom 40% is computed as the annualized average growth rate in per capita real consumption or income of the bottom 40% of the population in the income distribution in a country from household surveys over a roughly 5-year period. Mean per capita real consumption or income is measured at 2011 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet). For some countries means are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The annualized growth rate is computed as (Mean in final year/Mean in initial year)^(1/(Final year - Initial year)) - 1. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported. The initial year refers to the nearest survey collected 5 years before the most recent survey available, only surveys collected between 3 and 7 years before the most recent survey are considered. The final year refers to the most recent survey available between 2011 and 2015. Growth rates for Iraq are based on survey means of 2005 PPP$. The coverage and quality of the 2011 PPP price data for Iraq and most other North African and Middle Eastern countries were hindered by the exceptional period of instability they faced at the time of the 2011 exercise of the International Comparison Program. See PovcalNet for detailed explanations.; ; World Bank, Global Database of Shared Prosperity (GDSP) circa 2010-2015 (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-database-of-shared-prosperity).; ; The comparability of welfare aggregates (consumption or income) for the chosen years T0 and T1 is assessed for every country. If comparability across the two surveys is a major concern for a country, the selection criteria are re-applied to select the next best survey year(s). Annualized growth rates are calculated between the survey years, using a compound growth formula. The survey years defining the period for which growth rates are calculated and the type of welfare aggregate used to calculate the growth rates are noted in the footnotes.

  3. f

    Unadjusted data.

    • plos.figshare.com
    xls
    Updated Apr 26, 2024
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Niels D. Martin; Laura L. Schott; Mary K. Miranowski; Amarsinh M. Desai; Cynthia C. Lowen; Zhun Cao; Krysmaru Araujo Torres (2024). Unadjusted data. [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302074.t003
    Explore at:
    xlsAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Apr 26, 2024
    Dataset provided by
    PLOS ONE
    Authors
    Niels D. Martin; Laura L. Schott; Mary K. Miranowski; Amarsinh M. Desai; Cynthia C. Lowen; Zhun Cao; Krysmaru Araujo Torres
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    BackgroundArginine-supplemented enteral immunonutrition has been designed to optimize outcomes in critical care patients. Existing formulas may be isocaloric and isoproteic, yet differ in L-arginine content, energy distribution, and in source and amount of many other specialized ingredients. The individual contributions of each may be difficult to pinpoint; however, all cumulate in the body’s response to illness and injury. The study objective was to compare health outcomes between different immunonutrition formulas.MethodsReal-world data from October 2015 –February 2019 in the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database (formerly the Premier Healthcare Database) was reviewed for patients with an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and ≥3 days exclusive use of either higher L-arginine formula (HAF), or lower L-arginine formula (LAF). Multivariable generalized linear model regression was used to check associations between formulas and ICU length of stay.Results3,284 patients (74.5% surgical) were included from 21 hospitals, with 2,525 receiving HAF and 759 LAF. Inpatient mortality (19.4%) and surgical site infections (6.2%) were similar across groups. Median hospital stay of 17 days (IQR: 16) did not differ by immunonutrition formula. Median ICU stay was shorter for patients receiving HAF compared to LAF (10 vs 12 days; P

  4. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Xiao-Yu Li; Xuan Liao; Jia Lin; Chang-Jun Lan; Qing-Qing Tan (2023). S1 Data - [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289033.s001

S1 Data -

Related Article
Explore at:
xlsxAvailable download formats
Dataset updated
Aug 24, 2023
Dataset provided by
PLOS ONE
Authors
Xiao-Yu Li; Xuan Liao; Jia Lin; Chang-Jun Lan; Qing-Qing Tan
License

Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically

Description

PurposeTo investigate the effect of the optional biometric parameters lens thickness (LT) and center corneal thickness (CCT) in the Kane formula on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.MethodsA cross-sectional study included consecutive cataract patients who received uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation from May to September 2022 were enrolled. The ocular biometric parameters were obtained using IOLMaster 700 and then inputted into online Kane formula calculator. The IOL power was calculated for targeting emmetropia and compared between groups: not omitting (NO) group, omitting LT and CCT (OLC) group, omitting LT (OL) group and omitting CCT (OC) group. Further, according to the axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and mean keratometry (Km), the eyes were divided into three subgroups, respectively.Results1005 eyes of 1005 consecutive patients were included. There was no significant difference in IOL power between NO group and OC group (P = 0.064), and the median absolute difference (MedAD) was 0.05D. The IOL power in NO group showed significant differences from OLC group and OL group respectively (P

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu