- Open Contents 공개된 저널, 강의 연구동향정보, 분야별 연구과제를 검색하고 활용할 수 있습니다.
- 통합검색 협약기관 도서관(DGIST, GIST, KAIST, UNIST)의 과학기술정보를 검색하고 공동활용할 수 있습니다.
- 상호대차 우리 도서관에 없는 도서를 협약기관 도서관에 의뢰하여 제공받는 서비스입니다.
- 원문복사 우리 도서관에 소장되어 있지 않은 학술자료를 협약기관 도서관에 의뢰하여 제공받는 서비스입니다.
- ℯCollection 과학기술분야 연구에 필요한 학술자원 및 연구에 기초가 되는 콘텐츠를 큐레이션 하여 제공하는 서비스입니다.
저널 More An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS) Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients. Methods: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure–the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Results: In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios. Conclusions: In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
연구동향 More Did you know that although Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, he received the Nobel Prize for the antibiotic's development jointly with two other Laureates? The two scientists Fleming shared the Nobel Prize with were Ernst Chain and Howard Florey. After Fleming's discovery, researchers knew penicillin had great value but found that the substance was unstable and difficult to produce in pure form. At the beginning of the 1940s, Chain and Florey succeeded in producing a pure form of penicillin and investigated its properties in more detail. Their work was crucial in enabling a pharmaceutical that could be produced in large quantities. For more on the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine see: https://goo.gl/EZaT1C Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation
연구과제 More Re-entry to Active Research Program The Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET) is conducting a Re-entry to Active Research (RARE) program to reengage, retrain, and broaden participation within the academic workforce. The primary objective of the RARE program is to catalyze the advancement along the academic tenure-track of highly meritorious individuals who are returning from a hiatus from active research. By providing re-entry points to active academic research, the RARE program will reinvest in the nation’s most highly trained scientists and engineers, while broadening participation and increasing diversity of experience. A RARE research proposal must describe potentially transformative research that falls within the scope of participating <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/funding/programs.jsp?org=CBET">CBET programs</a>. The RARE program includes two Tracks to catalyze the advancement of investigators along the academic tenure system after a research hiatus, either to a tenure-track position or to a higher-tenured academic rank. Track 1 of the RARE program reengages investigators in a competitive funding opportunity with accommodations for gap in record that are a result of the research hiatus. A Track 1 proposal will follow the budgetary guidelines of the relevant CBET program for an unsolicited research proposal. Track 2 retrains investigators for whom the research hiatus has led to the need for new or updated techniques, such that retraining is required to return the investigator to competitive research activity. A description of how these new techniques will lead to competitive research in CBET programs is required. A Track 2 proposal budget will include only funds necessary for specific retraining activities, such as travel to a workshop or conference, workshop registration fees, a retraining sabbatical, or seed funding to support collection of preliminary data (including salary support, equipment usage fees, materials, and/or supplies). General inquiries regarding this program should be made to: <a href="mailto:RAREquestions@NSF.GOV">RAREquestions@NSF.GOV</a> or a RARE Program Officer listed below.