Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Diagnostik (2)
- Früherkennung (2)
- Mammakarzinom (2)
- Nachsorge (2)
- Richtlinie (2)
- breast cancer (2)
- diagnosis (2)
- follow‑up (2)
- guideline (2)
- screening (2)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
Despite a large body of research, the linguistic nature of exhaustivity in single wh-questions is unresolved. Moreover, little empirical evidence exists as to which related structures pattern with bare wh-questions regarding exhaustivity. This paper explores the felicity of various exhaustivity violations in unembedded single bare wh-questions in German and compares them to related structures. In two novel felicity judgment experiments, a total of 441 participants rated exhaustive as well as non-exhaustive plural and non-exhaustive singleton answers to wh-questions or statements in a questionnaire. Answers were based on picture stimuli depicting individuals performing various actions. The felicity of non-exhaustive answers was compared across four main test conditions: bare wh-questions (wer ‘who’), wh-questions with a lexical exhaustivity marker (wer alles ‘who all’), plural definite descriptions contained in a restrictive relative clause (e.g., “the people who are fishing in the garden”), and the scalar quantifier “some” (e.g., “some people who are fishing in the garden”).
We employ a novel methodological approach to improve the interpretability of statistical differences between experimental conditions by using the statistical measure of Minimal Important Difference (MID). Our results from estimated MIDs reveal that adults’ felicity judgments of non-exhaustive plural answers to bare wh-questions pattern with those to wer alles-questions and to plural definite descriptions: exhaustivity violations in the bare wh, the wer alles and the plural definite conditions were rated as less felicitous than exhaustivity violations in the some-condition.
Ziele: Das Ziel dieser offiziellen Leitlinie, die von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) und der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft (DKG) publiziert und koordiniert wurde, ist es, die Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms zu optimieren.
Methoden: Der Aktualisierungsprozess der S3-Leitlinie aus 2012 basierte zum einen auf der Adaptation identifizierter Quellleitlinien und zum anderen auf Evidenzübersichten, die nach Entwicklung von PICO-(Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome-)Fragen, systematischer Recherche in Literaturdatenbanken sowie Selektion und Bewertung der gefundenen Literatur angefertigt wurden. In den interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppen wurden auf dieser Grundlage Vorschläge für Empfehlungen und Statements erarbeitet, die im Rahmen von strukturierten Konsensusverfahren modifiziert und graduiert wurden.
Empfehlungen: Der Teil 1 dieser Kurzversion der Leitlinie zeigt Empfehlungen zur Früherkennung, Diagnostik und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms: Der Stellenwert des Mammografie-Screenings wird in der aktualisierten Leitlinienversion bestätigt und bildet damit die Grundlage der Früherkennung. Neben den konventionellen Methoden der Karzinomdiagnostik wird die Computertomografie (CT) zum Staging bei höherem Rückfallrisiko empfohlen. Die Nachsorgekonzepte beinhalten Untersuchungsintervalle für die körperliche Untersuchung, Ultraschall und Mammografie, während weiterführende Gerätediagnostik und Tumormarkerbestimmungen bei der metastasierten Erkrankung Anwendung finden.
Purpose: The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer.
Methods: The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure.
Recommendations: Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.