Search

Although previous studies of today's globalised and competitive research landscape have mentioned the research collaborations of CANZUK countries (i.e., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), none have yet studied them in detail. Further, such studies have used different measures of international research collaboration (IRC), resulting in disparate findings. This paper, therefore, analyses the strengths of CANZUK research collaborations, how those collaborations have changed over time, and assesses the effect of three ways of measures on the results (absolute strength, bilateral similarity, and multilateral similarity). We provide a detailed characterisation of the CANZUK research network and its relationships with partner countries, which reveals that the most collaborative CANZUK countries are the UK and Australia, among other findings. We also confirm that many findings differ depending on which measures are used. We offer an explanation of this difference with reference to the nature of the measures (i.e., what they really measure) and make suggestions for suitable measures in future studies depending on their purpose. Finally, we discuss how this study's findings can be used by research policy makers (in CANZUK and elsewhere) in deciding on research strategy and by researchers in appropriately measuring IRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the years, there has been a shift towards more conservative treatment, with primary repair of colonic injuries being preferred over faecal diversion. We present a cohort study of the management of penetrating colon injury over the past 10 years from a major trauma hospital in western Sydney. We aim to evaluate the trend of operative management of penetrating colonic injuries. Methods Patients were identified via the prospectively collected trauma registry at Westmead Hospital from 2003 to 2013. Fifty-seven patients initially identified with a proven diagnosis of penetrating colonic injury had their medical records reviewed. Excluded in the study are patients who had rectal injuries or serosal tears of the colon. Patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, treatment course and complications were analysed. Extent of colonic injury was graded of using American Association for the Surgery of Trauma scalings. Results A total of 55 patients were then included in the study. Primary repair of colon injuries was the most common method used (63.6%, n = 35) followed by resection and primary anastomosis (21.8% n = 12), diverting colostomy (14.3%, n = 5) and non-operative management (5.5%, n = 3). There was a higher rate of diversion in the earlier time period (2003–2007) when compared to the later time period (2008–2013), p = 0.03. Over the 10-year period, there was no significant difference with regards to complications among groups, particularly intra-abdominal complications. Conclusion From 2003 to 2013, there is a shift of management of penetrating colonic injuries from diversion to resection and primary anastomosis to that of primary repair. Primary repair of colonic injuries is a safe option and is associated with low morbidity. It should be considered as a valid tool in the armamentarium of today’s surgeon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]