[Current concepts of resilience research]. / Aktuelle Konzepte der Resilienzforschung.

BACKGROUND: Stress-related mental disorders are the most prevalent and cost-intensive disorders of our time. On the other hand, the maintenance of mental health despite stressors, i. e. resilience, is a frequent phenomenon. Research on psychological resilience and its underlying mechanisms offers innovative possibilities for health promotion. It requires a consistent understanding of resilience and adequate methods of operationalization. OBJECTIVES: Modern concepts of the definition, operationalization and assessment of resilience as well as its implications for study designs in resilience research. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis and discussion of current works and expert recommendations for the design of resilience research. RESULTS: Resilience research is undergoing a period of transition. Based on a new understanding of resilience as a dynamic and modifiable process, new approaches for operationalization and assessment were proposed. These include, for example, a transdiagnostic approach and the identification of resilience mechanisms, the consideration of stressor exposure in measuring the construct, and longitudinal cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: In the upcoming decades, further profitable findings from current prospective longitudinal studies can be expected. One challenge for future resilience research consists in the continuous dissemination and implementation of the approaches described.

Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction.

Since the last comprehensive review of anticoagulation in acute myocardial infarction four additional randomized control trials have been reported. The overwhelming majority of all trials favored anticoagulation. Rates of thromboembolism were higher in the control, and hemorrhagic complications in the anticoagulated group. Pooling of all randomized control trials gives mean case fatality rates of 19.6% for the control and 15.4% for the anticoagulated group, a relative reduction of 21% (P less than 0.05 or less than 0.001, depending on the analytic method). Five of six randomized control trials reported "no effect" because the difference favoring anticoagulation was not statistically significant. However, sample sizes in these "negative" papers were too small to protect against missing a 21% reduction in true case fatality rate due to anticoagulation (beta greater than 0.10). All patients who present no specific contraindication should receive anticoagulants during hospitalization for infarction.