00866nam0-22002891i-450-99000563338040332120061128110127.0000563338FED01000563338(Aleph)000563338FED0100056333819990604d--------km-y0itay50------baitaa-------00---Considerazioni sulla pittura italiana dei giovaniEgidio BonfanteMilanoEdizioni d'arte G.G. Gorlich[s.d.]100 p.ill.25 cmPittura contemporanea759.0621itaBonfante,Egidio217293ITUNINARICAUNIMARCBK990005633380403321759.06 BON 1ST. ARTE 4050FLFBCFLFBCConsiderazioni sulla pittura italiana dei giovani605456UNINA04328nam 22006254a 450 991097222510332120200520144314.097808262645410826264549(CKB)1000000000001572(OCoLC)59671787(CaPaEBR)ebrary10063464(SSID)ssj0000125577(PQKBManifestationID)11136907(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000125577(PQKBWorkID)10026683(PQKB)10351048(OCoLC)1132668978(MdBmJHUP)muse77160(Au-PeEL)EBL3570799(CaPaEBR)ebr10063464(MiAaPQ)EBC3570799(Perlego)1693525(EXLCZ)99100000000000157220030701d2003 uy 0engurcn|||||||||txtccrA common human ground universality and particularity in a multicultural world /Claes G. Ryn1st ed.Columbia University of Missouri Pressc20031 online resource (164 p.) Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph9780826214942 0826214940 Includes bibliographical references and index.Peace as the union of universality and particularity -- Moral and cultural preconditions of harmony -- A cosmopolitan basis for peace -- The living past -- A common ethical center -- Dubious conceptions of unity -- The attack on history -- Value-centered historicism -- The concrete as normative -- The unique expression of the universal.A great challenge of the twenty-first century is the danger of conflict between persons, peoples, and cultures, among and within societies. In A Common Human Ground, Claes Ryn explores the nature of this problem and sets forth a theory about what is necessary for peaceful relations to be possible. Many in the Western world trust in "democracy, " "capitalism, " "liberal tolerance, " "scientific progress, " or "general enlightenment" to handle this problem. Although each of these, properly defined, may contribute toward alleviating disputes, Ryn argues that the problem is much more complex and demanding than is usually recognized. He reasons that, most fundamentally, good relations among individuals and nations have moral and cultural preconditions. What can predispose them to mutual respect and peace? One Western philosophical tradition, for which Plato set the pattern, maintains that the only way to genuine unity is for historical diversity to yield to universality. The implication of this view for a multicultural world would be a peace that requires that cultural distinctiveness be effaced as far as possible and replaced with a universal culture. A very different Western philosophical tradition denies the existence of universality altogether. It is represented today by postmodernist multiculturalism-a view that leaves unanswered the question as to how conflict between diverse groups might be averted. Ryn questions both of these traditions, arguing for the potential union of universality and particularity. He contends that the two need not be enemies, but in fact need each other. Cultivating individual and national particularities is potentially compatible with strengthening and enriching our common humanity. This volume embraces the notion of universality, while at the same time historicizing it. Using wide-ranging examples, Ryn presents a firmly sustained and systematic argument centering on this central issue. His approach is interdisciplinary, discussing not only political ideas, but also fiction, drama, and other arts. Scholarly and philosophical, but not specialized, this book will appeal to general readers as well as intellectuals. Philosophical anthropologyUniversals (Philosophy)Ethnic relationsPhilosophical anthropology.Universals (Philosophy)Ethnic relations.303.48/2Ryn Claes G.1943-572947MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910972225103321A common human ground4368468UNINA12159nam 22006973 450 991101985120332120250304170207.0978139420692613942069259781394206933139420693397813942069191394206917(MiAaPQ)EBC31783812(Au-PeEL)EBL31783812(CKB)36568149000041(Perlego)4621568(OCoLC)1472987445(EXLCZ)993656814900004120241117d2025 uy 0engurcnu||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierHow to read a paper the basics of evidence-based healthcare /Trisha Greenhalgh, Paul DijkstraSeventh edition.Newark :John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated,2025.©2025.1 online resource (351 pages)How To Series9781394206902 1394206909 Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication Page -- Contents -- Foreword to the first edition by Professor Sir David Weatherall -- Preface to the seventh edition -- Preface to the first edition -- Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1 Why read papers at all? -- Does 'evidence-based medicine' simply mean 'reading papers in medical journals'? -- Why do people sometimes groan when you mention evidence-based healthcare? -- Decision-making by anecdote -- Decision-making by press cutting -- Decision-making by GOBSAT (good old boys sat around a table) -- Decision-making by cost minimisation -- Before you start: formulate the problem -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 2 Searching the literature -- The information jungle -- What are you looking for? -- Levels upon levels of evidence -- Synthesised sources: systems, summaries and syntheses -- Pre-appraised sources: synopses of systematic reviews and primary studies -- Specialised resources -- Primary studies: tackling the jungle -- PubMed -- SPORTDiscus -- Google Scholar -- One-stop shopping: federated search engines -- Using artificial intelligence to search the literature -- Asking for help and asking around -- Online tutorials for effective searching -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 3 Getting your bearings: what is this paper about? -- The science of 'trashing' papers -- Three preliminary questions to get your bearings -- Question one: Why was the study needed and what was the research question? -- Question two: What was the research design? -- Question three: Was the research design appropriate to the question? -- What are randomised controlled trials and why do they matter? -- What are cohort studies? -- What are case-control studies? -- What are cross-sectional surveys? -- What are case reports? -- The traditional hierarchy of evidence.Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 4 Assessing methodological quality -- Was the study original? -- Who is the study about? -- Was the design of the study sensible? -- Was bias avoided or minimised? -- Sources of bias in randomised controlled trials -- Sources of bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials -- Sources of bias in cohort studies -- Sources of bias in case-control studies -- Was assessment 'blind'? -- Were preliminary statistical questions addressed? -- Sample size -- Duration of follow-up -- Completeness of follow-up -- A note on ethical considerations -- Summing up -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 5 Statistics for the non-statistician -- How can non-statisticians evaluate statistical tests? -- Have the authors set the scene correctly? -- Have they determined whether their groups are comparable and, if necessary, adjusted for baseline differences? -- What sort of data do they have and have they used appropriate statistical tests? -- If the statistical tests in the paper are obscure, why have the authors chosen to use them, and have they included a reference? -- Have the data been analysed according to the original study protocol? -- Paired data, tails and outliers -- Were paired tests performed on paired data? -- Was a two-tailed test performed whenever the effect of an intervention could conceivably be a negative one? -- Were 'outliers' analysed with both common sense and appropriate statistical adjustments? -- Correlation, regression and causation -- Has correlation been distinguished from regression, and has the correlation coefficient (r-value) been calculated and interpreted correctly? -- Have assumptions been made about the nature and direction of causality? -- Probability and confidence -- Have p-values been calculated and interpreted appropriately?.Have confidence intervals been calculated and do the authors' conclusions reflect them? -- The bottom line (quantifying the chance of benefit and harm) -- Have the authors expressed the effects of an intervention in terms of the likely benefit or harm that an individual patient can expect? -- Summary -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 6 Papers that report clinical trials of simple interventions -- What is a clinical trial? -- Drug trials: 'evidence' and marketing -- Making decisions about therapy -- Surrogate endpoints -- What information to expect in a paper describing a randomised controlled trial: the CONSORT statement -- Getting worthwhile evidence from pharmaceutical representatives -- A note on vaccine trials -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 7 Papers that report trials of complex interventions -- Complex interventions -- Ten questions to ask about a paper describing a complex intervention -- Question one: What is the problem for which this complex intervention is seen as a possible solution? -- Question two: What was done in the developmental phase of the research to inform the design of the complex intervention? -- Question three: What were the core and non-core components of the intervention? -- Question four: What was the theoretical mechanism of action of the intervention? -- Question five: What outcome measures were used and were they sensible? -- Question six: What were the findings? -- Question seven: What process evaluation was done and what were the key findings? In particular, to what extent was the intervention implemented as planned ('implementation fidelity')? -- Question eight: If the findings were negative, to what extent can this be explained by implementation failure and/or inadequate optimisation of the intervention?.Question nine: If the findings varied across different subgroups, to what extent have the authors explained this by refining their theory of change? -- Question ten: What further research do the authors believe is needed and is this belief justified? -- References -- Chapter 8 Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests -- Ten suspects in the dock -- Validating diagnostic tests against a gold standard -- Ten questions to ask about a paper that claims to validate a diagnostic or screening test -- Question one: Is this test potentially relevant to my patients and my practice? -- Question two: Has the test been compared with a true gold standard? -- Question three: Did this validation study include an appropriate spectrum of participants? -- Question four: Has work-up (verification) bias been avoided? -- Question five: Has expectation bias been avoided? -- Question six: Was the test shown to be reproducible both within and between observers? -- Question seven: What are the features of the test as derived from this validation study? -- Question eight: Were confidence intervals given for sensitivity, specificity and other features of the test? -- Question nine: Has a sensible 'normal range' been derived from these results? -- Question ten: Has this test been placed in the context of other potential tests in the diagnostic sequence for the condition? -- Likelihood ratios -- Clinical prediction models -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 9 Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) -- When is a review systematic? -- Evaluating systematic reviews: five questions to ask -- Question one: What is the important clinical question that the review addressed? -- Question two: Was a thorough search carried out of the appropriate database(s) and were other potentially important sources explored?.Question three: Was risk of bias of individual studies assessed and the studies weighted accordingly? -- Question four: How sensitive are the results to the way the review has been performed? -- Question five: Have the numerical results been interpreted with common sense and due regard to the broader aspects of the problem? -- Meta-analysis for the non-statistician -- Explaining heterogeneity -- New approaches to systematic review -- Exercises based on this chapter -- References -- Chapter 10 Papers that advise you what to do (guidelines) -- The great guidelines debate -- Ten questions to ask about a clinical guideline -- Question one: Did the preparation and publication of this guideline involve a significant conflict of interest? -- Question two: Is the guideline concerned with an appropriate topic and does it state clearly the target group it applies to? -- Question three: Did the guideline development panel include: (1) an expert in the topic area -- (2) a specialist in the methods of secondary research (e.g. meta-analyst, health economist) and (3) a person affected by the condition? -- Question four: Have the subjective judgements of the development panel been made explicit and are they justified? -- Question five: Have all the relevant data been scrutinised and rigorously evaluated? -- Question six: Has the evidence been properly synthesised and are the guideline's conclusions in keeping with the data on which they are based? -- Question seven: Does the guideline address variations in medical practice and other controversial areas (e.g. optimum care in response to genuine or perceived underfunding)? -- Question eight: Is the guideline clinically relevant, comprehensive and flexible? -- Question nine: Does the guideline take into account what is acceptable to, affordable by and practically possible for patients?.Question ten: Does the guideline include recommendations for its own dissemination, implementation and regular review?."In a clear and engaging style, How to Read a Paper demystifies evidence-based medicine and explains how to critically appraise published research and also put the findings into practice. An ideal introduction to evidence-based medicine, How to Read a Paper explains what to look for in different types of papers and how best to evaluate the literature and then implement the findings in an evidence-based, patient-centred way. Helpful checklist summaries of the key points in each chapter provide a useful framework for applying the principles of evidence-based medicine in everyday practice"--Provided by publisher.How To SeriesEvidence-based medicineMedical literatureEvaluationMedicineResearchEvaluationMedical literatureClinical medicineDecision makingEvidence-based medicine.Medical literatureEvaluation.MedicineResearchEvaluation.Medical literature.Clinical medicineDecision making.610.72Greenhalgh Trisha M1840420Dijkstra Paul1840421MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9911019851203321How to read a paper4419957UNINA