@article{KristDimeoKeil2013,
  author    = {Krist, Lilian and Dimeo, Fernando and Keil, Thomas},
  title     = {Can progressive resistance training twice a week improve mobility, muscle strength, and quality of life in very elderly nursing-home residents with impaired mobility? A pilot study},
  series = {Clinical Interventions in Aging},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Clinical Interventions in Aging},
  doi       = {10.2147/CIA.S42136},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-122176},
  pages     = {443-448},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Purpose: To determine the effects of progressive resistance training on mobility, muscle strength, and quality of life in nursing-home residents with impaired mobility. Methods: Nursing-home residents aged 77 years and older with impaired mobility were recruited in Berlin, Germany. The eight-week exercise program consisted of progressive resistance training twice a week. Mobility (primary outcome) was assessed with the Elderly Mobility Scale (zero = worst, 20 = best) at baseline and after 8 weeks. Muscle strength (secondary outcome) was determined by the eight-repetition maximum. The Short Form-36 Health Survey was used to assess quality of life. Results: Of the 15 participants (mean age 84 years, range 77-97 years), ten completed the 8-week program. Mobility (Elderly Mobility Scale mean +/- standard deviation pre 14.1 +/- 3.2 and post 17.5 +/- 3.6; P = 0.005) as well as muscle strength of upper and lower limbs improved (from 62\% at chest press up to 108\% at leg extension machine), whereas most quality of life subscales did not show considerable change. Conclusion: Resistance training twice a week over 2 months seemed to considerably improve mobility and muscle strength in persons aged 77-97 years with impaired mobility.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SteinkePeitschLudwigetal.2013,
  author    = {Steinke, Sabine I. B. and Peitsch, Wiebke K. and Ludwig, Alexander and Goebeler, Matthias},
  title     = {Cost-of-Illness in Psoriasis: Comparing Inpatient and Outpatient Therapy},
  series = {PLOS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLOS ONE},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0078152},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-128235},
  pages     = {e78152},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Treatment modalities of chronic plaque psoriasis have dramatically changed over the past ten years with a still continuing shift from inpatient to outpatient treatment. This development is mainly caused by outpatient availability of highly efficient and relatively well-tolerated systemic treatments, in particular BioLogicals. In addition, inpatient treatment is time-and cost-intense, conflicting with the actual burst of health expenses and with patient preferences. Nevertheless, inpatient treatment with dithranol and UV light still is a major mainstay of psoriasis treatment in Germany. The current study aims at comparing the total costs of inpatient treatment and outpatient follow-up to mere outpatient therapy with different modalities (topical treatment, phototherapy, classic systemic therapy or BioLogicals) over a period of 12 months. To this end, a retrospective cost-of-illness study was conducted on 120 patients treated at the University Medical Centre Mannheim between 2005 and 2006. Inpatient therapy caused significantly higher direct medical, indirect and total annual costs than outpatient treatment (13,042 (sic) versus 2,984 (sic)). Its strong influence on cost levels was confirmed by regression analysis, with total costs rising by 104.3\% in case of inpatient treatment. Patients receiving BioLogicals produced the overall highest costs, whereas outpatient treatment with classic systemic antipsoriatic medications was less cost-intense than other alternatives.},
  language  = {en}
}