Raccontare la storia al tempo delle crisi

La ricerca analizza il tema della relazione tra storia e narrazione nella letteratura degli ultimi quindici anni in tre contesti nazionali: Italia, Spagna e Portogalo. Per indagare un campo così vasto si sono identificate tre direttrici principali connesse tra loro, coincidenti con tre "crisi": la crisi del rapporto tra letteratura e mercato, la crisi del concetto di verità e la crisi dello stato nazione. Attraverso le riflessioni sul postmoderno (Lyotard, Jameson Hutcheon) e l’analisi di Bourdieu si indaga il rapporto tra mercato e autore letterario, facendo particolare riferimento ai percorsi letterari di Rafael Chirbes, Mia Couto e Wu Ming. Il tema della forma letteraria è invece letto atttraverso le analisi di Hutcheon e analizzando i testi di Helder Macedo (Pedro e Paula), Isaac Rosa (¡Otra maldita novela sobre la guerra civil!) e Tommaso De Lorenzis-Guido Favale (L’aspra stagione). La crisi del concetto di verità viene analizzata alla luce del dibattito sulla storiografia nella seconda metà del Novecento. In particolare si evidenzia la tensione tra Hayden White e Carlo Ginzuburg. Per evidenziare come le relazioni di potere influenzino la narrazione della storia si fa inoltre riferimento alle analisi di Michel Foucault, Michel de Certeau, Stephen Greenbaltt e Gayatri Spivak. Si analizzano quindi Anatomía de un instante, di Javier Cercas, Romanzo criminale, di Giancarlo de Cataldo e As três vidas, di João Tordo. Infine ci si riferisce alla crisi dello stato-nazione individuando una tensione tra le analisi di György Lukács e Franco Moretti, e allargando la riflessione agli studi sociologici di Immanuel Wallerstein e Saskia Sassen. Inoltre, attraverso i testi di Benedict Anderson, Homi B. Bhabha, José Saramao e Eduardo Lourenço si articola una riflessione sull’immaginario politico nazionale. I testi analizzati sono Victus, di Albert Sánchez Piñol, Pro Patria, di Ascanio Celestini e A voz da terra di Miguel Real.

Das deutsche Kriegsgefangenenwesen 1939 - 1945

Zusammenfassung: Die vorliegende Untersuchung zum deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen (KGW) im Zweiten Weltkrieg schließt eine wichtige Lücke innerhalb der geschichtswissenschaftlichen Forschungen zum Themenkreis der Kriegsgefangenschaft in deutschem Gewahrsam. Bisherige Studien (bis einschließlich 1997) behandeln vor allem sozial- und kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte der Kriegsgefangenen (Kgf.), der Lagergesellschaft und dem Alltag von Soldaten in Kriegsgefangenschaft. Der Verfasser indes legt mit seiner Magisterarbeit erstmals eine Organisations- und Strukturgeschichte des deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesens von 1939 bis 1945 vor, welche fundamentale Grundlagen der deutschen militärischen Lagerorganisation und Verwaltung dokumentiert. So wird die Entwicklung von den Vorkriegsplanungen bis zum Kriegsende anhand der zentralen Dienststellen herausgearbeitet und im Kontext des Genfer Kriegsgefangenenabkommens von 1929 und völkerrechtlicher Implikationen gewichtet. Hiermit untrennbar verbundene Einflußnahmen nichtmilitärischer Stellen in die Entscheidungsgewalt der Streitkräfte im Heimatkriegsgebiet und in den Wehrmachtbefehlshaberbereichen werden nicht zuletzt auch anhand mehrerer Organigramme veranschaulicht. Zudem dokumentiert und analysiert die Untersuchung die im Kriegsverlauf stetig verschärften Maßnahmen zur Fluchtprävention und der konzertierten Fahndung nach geflohenen Kriegsgefangenen: Die Machterosion des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (OKW) zugunsten des Reichsführers-SS, des Reichssicherheitshauptamts und nicht zuletzt der Parteikanzlei der NSDAP wird so augenfällig. Trotz eminenter Schriftgutverluste kann der Verfasser vor allem anhand einer nahezu vollständig erhaltenen Schlüsselquelle die Stellenbesetzung und Organisationsstruktur der mit Kriegsgefangenenfragen befassten Stellen im OKW rekonstruieren. Die Auswertung dieser Sammelmitteilungen / Befehlssammlung für das Kriegsgefangenenwesen sowie an anderer Stelle überlieferter Organisationsbefehle ermöglicht wichtige Änderungen am derzeitigen Forschungsstand. Darüber hinaus beschäftigt sich die vorliegende Untersuchung mit dem Arbeitseinsatz Kriegsgefangener in der deutschen Wirtschaft als in der zweiten Kriegshälfte zentralem Element der Kriegsgefangenschaft. Außerdem wird beleuchtet, welche politischen, (rassen)ideologischen oder reziprok konnotierten Faktoren den Stellenwert gefangener Soldaten unterschiedlicher Nationalität innerhalb der Gefangenenhierarchie im deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen bestimmten. Inhalt: 1. Einführung; 2. Die Entwicklung des Kriegsvölkerrechts und das Genfer Kriegsgefangenenabkommen von 1929; 3. Einleitende Bemerkungen zum deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen: Quellenlage, Grundlagen; 4. Organisationsstruktur und Aufgaben des KGW: Zuständigkeiten für Kgf. in OKW und OKH, Abt. Wehrmachtverluste und Kriegsgefangene, der General z.b.V. für das KGW 1939 bis Ende 1941, Allgemeine und Organisationsabteilung seit Januar 1942, Generalinspekteur und Inspekteur des KGW von Juli 1943 bis Oktober 1944, das Kriegsgefangenenwesen unter Himmler seit Oktober 1944; 5. Die Kriegsgefangenenlager: Lagertypen, Anzahl und Verwendung, die Gesamtzahl Kgf. und Belegstärken ausgewählter Lager; 6. Richtlinien für KGL: Die Sammelmitteilungen / Befehlssammlung für das KGW, Lagerorganisation und Behandlung Kriegsgefangener; 7. Die Post der Kriegsgefangenen: Tätigkeit von Auslandsbriefprüfstelle, Abwehr III Referat Kgf. und Abwehrstellen der Wehrkreise, Vorgaben für Postüberwachung und Stimmungsberichte der Asten, Befehle zur Kgf-Post und Kooperation mit Hilfsorganisationen und Schutzmächten; 8. Fluchtprävention: Bestimmungen und Maßnahmen zur Fluchtvereitelung, der Fluchterlass vom 22.09.1942, der Sonderfahndungsplan der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD vom 28.09.1942, Erlass zur Kriegsfahndung vom 5.12.1942, der Fluchterlaß vom 02.07.1943, der Erlaß zur Mitarbeit NSDAP bei Groß- und Kriegsfahndungen vom 10.07.1943, Schulung zur Fluchtprävention auf Wehrkreisebene 1944, Preisausschreiben "Wie verhindere ich Fluchten?" vom 09.04.1945, Anwerbung von V-Leuten durch die Abwehr; 9. Arbeitseinsatz Kriegsgefangener in der deutschen Wirtschaft und beteiligte Stellen; 10. Der Status Kriegsgefangener unterschiedlicher Nationalitäten im Vergleich; 11. Schluss

Prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of sepsis: 1st revision of S-2k guidelines of the German Sepsis Society (Deutsche Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG)) and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI))

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1(st) revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the "German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal" of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

[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.