Methodological proposal for elaboration of learning materials in sing language in university teaching

[EN] Hearing impairment may constitute a barrier for accessing to information and communication in public places. Since the oral communication forms the basis of the learning process, this problem becomes of particular relevance at schools and universities. To cope with this situation is not enough to provide a textual translation for people with hearing disabilities, society via educational authorities must facilitate alternatives that improve access to information and education to this collective. According to this reality, the possibility of having an alternative tool of communication based in the Spanish Sign Language (SSL) emerges as a contribution to help overcoming the communication obstacles that the students with this difficulty usually find.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Elaboration et caractérisation de ciments géopolymères à base de scories volcaniques

Two types of volcanic ashes referenced as ZD (volcanic ashes from Djoungo) and ZG (volcanic ashes from Galim) were collected from two Cameroonian localities. They were characterized (chemical and mineralogical compositions, amorphous phase content, particle size distribution and specific surface area) and used as raw materials for the synthesis of geopolymer cements at ambient temperature of laboratory (24 ± 3 °C). The synthesized products were characterized by determining their setting time, linear shrinkage and compressive strength, X-ray Diffraction, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy. The mineralogical composition, the amorphous phase content, the particle size distribution, the specific surface area of the volcanic ashes as well as the mass ratio of the alkaline solution (sodium silicate / sodium hydroxide) were the main parameters which influenced the synthesis of geopolymers with interesting characteristics at ambient temperature (24 ± 3 °C). The volcanic ashes (ZD) whose mineralogical composition contained anhydrite, low amorphous phase content and low specific surface area led to long setting times. Moreover, its products swelled and presented cracks due to the formation of ettringite and these resulted in low compressive strengths (7 to 19 MPa). The volcanic ashes (ZG) containing high amounts of amorphous phase and high specific surface area led geopolymers with setting times between 490 and 180 minutes and compressive strength between 7 and 50 MPa at ambient temperature of laboratory. The properties of geopolymers were improved when elaborated with a mixture of volcanic ashes and metakaolin (ZD–MK and ZG–MK). For geopolymers obtained from ZD–MK, the setting time was between 500 and 160 minutes while it was between 220 and 125 minutes for geopolymers obtained from ZG–MK. The compressive strength greatly increased between 23 and 68 MPa and 39 and 64 MPa for geopolymers obtained from ZG –MK and ZD–MK respectively. A comparative study of the properties of mixtures of metakaolin–alumina and volcanic ash–alumina based geopolymers shows that metakaolin is a good source of Al2O3 and SiO2 and which highly reactive with alkaline solution and produces geopolymers with better characteristics compared to volcanic ash based–geopolymer. The properties of volcanic ash–based geopolymer were also improved when amorphous alumina was incorporated into the volcanic ash. This additive is used to compensate the deficiencies in Al2O3 content in the volcanic ash. Compare to when volcanic ash is used alone 20 to 40 % incorporation of this additive corresponded to increases of the compressive strength by 18.1 % for metakaolin-alumina based-geopolymers and by 32.4 % for volcanic ash-based geopolymers.

An Elaboration of the Psycho-Physiological Method and its Application on the Process of Socialization of Mentally Handicapped People

The socialisation of mentally handicapped people is a long-term process during which the disabled person learns new habits and abilities step by step through education and training. Anxiety and neuroses due to an inadequate social environment can place obstacles in the path of the disabled person's integration into society. A method of regulating the psycho-physiological condition of mentally handicapped people (MRPC) was developed in order to reduce anxiety and neuropsychological tension and to establish positive social attitudes. Both verbal and non-verbal means of manipulating the psycho-physiological condition were used and experimental and control groups were formed from among the clients of Israelian's institute. The experimental groups applied the new method for six months, leading to a significant shift in the response of the clients involved. Expressed anxiety and defensive responses to mental tasks were transformed into orienting responses after 30 psycho-regulative exercises. Cognitive functions such as attention and memory also improved significantly. EEG examinations of the actual process of psycho-regulation revealed a tendency towards a change of brain activity by increasing the fast pulse frequency values in the alpha zones. Israelian concludes that the application of the MRPC creates better functional conditions for the socialisation of mentally handicapped people.

Synchronous Description of the Grammatical Structure of Modern Romani and Elaboration of Romani Textbook

The first outcome of this project was a synchronous description of the most widely spoken Romani dialect in the Czech and Slovak Republics, aimed at teachers and lecturers of the Romani language. This is intended to serve as a methodological guide for the demonstration of various grammatical phenomena, but may also assist people who want a basic knowledge of the linguistic structure of this neo-Indian language. The grammatical material is divided into 23 chapters, in a sequence which may be followed in teaching or studying. The book includes examples of the grammatical elements, but not exercises or articles. The second work produced was a textbook of Slovak Romani, which is the most detailed in the Czech or Slovak Republics to date. It is aimed at all those interested in active use of the Romani language: high school and university students, people working with the Roma, and Roma who speak little or nothing of the language of their forebears, The book includes 34 lessons, each containing relevant Romani tests (articles and dialogues), a short vocabulary list, grammatical explanations, exercises and examples of Romani written or oral expression. The textbook also contains a considerable amount of ethno-cultural information and notes on the life and traditions of the Roman, as well as pointing out some differences between different dialects. A brief Romani-Czech phrase book is included as an appendix.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

[Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration]

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Développement d’outils de gestion des ressources naturelles : Elaboration de plan d’aménagement répondant aux critères de participation paysanne et des intérêts respectifs de tous les acteurs

Modèle d'élaboration du plan d'aménagement et de gestion tenant compte des dynamiques spatio-temporelles et de la dynamique de la participation locale