http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Chiang Pin-Yi,Lin Yen-Heng,Huang Yu-Cheng,Lee Chung-Wei 대한신경중재치료의학회 2021 Neurointervention Vol.16 No.1
Excessive tortuosity is a notable cause of failed endovascular thrombectomy for acute large-vessel occlusion stroke. Transcervical access (TCA) is a commonly proposed solution for overcoming this difficulty. However, the large-bore catheter usually used in TCA increases the risk of serious local complications. This paper presents a modified technique for TCA that uses a pull-through buddy wire (PTBW) to track a large-bore femoral guiding sheath (GS) into the carotid artery via a small carotid puncture site. The carotid puncture site can be easily managed through gentle manual compression. Two illustrative cases using this technique to deal with a large aortic arch and tortuous left common carotid artery are reported. In both cases, recanalization was achieved after successful GS placement. Using a PTBW is feasible in TCA.
Ying-Ying Yang,Pin-Hsiang Huang,Ling-Yu Yang,Chia-Chang Huang,Chih-Wei Liu,Shiau-Shian Huang,Chen-Huan Chen,Fa-Yauh Lee,Shou-Yen Kao,Boaz Shulruf 한국보건의료인국가시험원 2022 보건의료교육평가 Vol.19 No.-
Purpose Undertaking a standard-setting exercise is a common method for setting pass/fail cut scores for high-stakes examinations. The recently introduced equal Z standard-setting method (EZ method) has been found to be a valid and effective alternative for the commonly used Angoff and Hofstee methods and their variants. The current study aims to estimate the minimum number of panelists required for obtaining acceptable and reliable cut scores using the EZ method. Methods The primary data were extracted from 31 panelists who used the EZ method for setting cut scores for a 12-station of medical school’s final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in Taiwan. For this study, a new data set composed of 1,000 random samples of different panel sizes, ranging from 5 to 25 panelists, was established and analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to measure the differences in the cut scores set by the sampled groups, across all sizes within each station. Results On average, a panel of 10 experts or more yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 90% and 15 experts yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 95%. No significant differences in cut scores associated with panel size were identified for panels of 5 or more experts. Conclusion The EZ method was found to be valid and feasible. Less than an hour was required for 12 panelists to assess 12 OSCE stations. Calculating the cut scores required only basic statistical skills.