Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism.

FRED C. TENOVER,* ROBERT D. ARBEIT, RICHARD V. GOERING, PATRICIA A. MICKELSEN, BARBARA E. MURRAY, DAVID H. PERSING, AND BALA SWAMINATHAN National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02130; Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178; Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California 94305; University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas 77030; and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905

https://courses.washington.edu/pabio568/files/tenover.pdf

Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing.

The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine

Lionel A. Mandell, Richard G. Wunderink, Antonio Anzueto, John G. Bartlett, G. Douglas Campbell, Nathan C. Dean, Scott F. Dowell, Thomas M. File, Jr. Daniel M. Musher, Michael S. Niederman, Antonio Torres, and Cynthia G. Whitney McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; University of Texas Health Science Center and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, and Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, and Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York; and Cap de Servei de Pneumologia i Allergia Respiratoria, Institut Clinic del Torax, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, CIBER CB06/06/0028, Barcelona, Spain.

/pdf/infectious-diseases-society-of-america-american-thoracic-1cn65eiqga.pdf

Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

Micrococcus, which, when limited in its extent and activity, causes acute suppurative inflammation (phlegmon), produces, when more extensive and intense in its action on the human system, the most virulent forms of septicaemia and pyaemia.1 In an elegant series of clinical observations and laboratory studies published in 1880 and 1882, Ogston described staphylococcal disease and its role in sepsis and abscess formation.1,2 More than 100 years later, Staphylococcus aureus remains a versatile and dangerous pathogen in humans. The frequencies of both community-acquired and hospital-acquired staphylococcal infections have increased steadily, with little change in overall mortality. Treatment of these infections . . .

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199808203390806?articleTools=true

Staphylococcus aureus infections.

1310 eras guidelines-driven upper gastrointestinal contrast study after esophagectomy can detect delayed gastric conduit emptying and improve outcomes

Mo1342 CONTEMPORARY OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC VS. ROBOTIC GIANT PARAESOPHAGEAL HERNIA REPAIR

BACKGROUND
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma poses a significant global health burden, yet the staging used to predict survival has limited ability to stratify patients by outcome. This study aimed to identify published clinical models that predict survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to evaluate them using an independent international multicentre dataset.


METHODS
A systematic literature search (title and abstract) using the Ovid Embase and MEDLINE databases (from 1947 to 11 July 2020) was performed. Inclusion criteria were studies that developed or validated a clinical prognostication model to predict either overall or disease-specific survival in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgical treatment with curative intent. Published models were validated using an independent dataset of 2450 patients who underwent oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma with curative intent.


RESULTS
Seventeen articles were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eleven models were suitable for testing in the independent validation dataset and nine of these were able to stratify patients successfully into groups with significantly different survival outcomes. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for individual survival prediction models ranged from 0.658 to 0.705, suggesting poor-to-fair accuracy.


CONCLUSION
This study highlights the need to concentrate on robust methodologies and improved, independent, validation, to increase the likelihood of clinical adoption of survival predictions models.

/pdf/systematic-review-and-validation-of-clinical-models-1hsq4s8y.pdf

Systematic review and validation of clinical models predicting survival after oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma.

A new enzyme immunoassay (Rubenostika; OrganonTeknika, Turnhout, Belgium), a new latex agglutination test(Rubalex; OrionDiagnostica, Espoo, Finland), andthree other accepted methods forthedeterminationofrubella immunity were compared witha standard hemagglutination inhibition assay.Of224serum samples tested, 54(24%)were nonreactive and24(11%)were lowtitered. Allprocedures were veryspecific (94to100%).Rubenostika was theleast sensitive method(88%), andRubalex was themostsensitive (98%). Thehemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assayisconsidered thestandard methodforthedetection ofrubella antibodies (6,9).However, other lesstedious andmore rapid procedures havebeenfound tobeacceptable alternatives tothe HAIassayforrubella immunity screening. Rapidmethods that havebeendeveloped forrubella serology testing include enzyme immunoassay (1,2,5,8,13), latex agglutination (2, 3,5,7,10-13), passive hemagglutination (2,4,9),fluorescenceimmunoassay (1,4,9),andradioimmunoassay (4,9). Thepurposeofthis study was toevaluate five rapid commercial tests, including a new enzyme immunoassay (Rubenostika; Organon Teknika, Turnhout, Belgium) anda new latex agglutination procedure (Rubalex; OrionDiagnostica, Espoo,Finland), andcompare themwitha standard HAI assayforthedetermination ofrubella immunity. A total of224serum samples were tested byallmethods. Theserahadbeensubmitted forthedetermination ofrubella immunity, frozen at -70°C,andthawedonce prior to testing. Sera were selected toinclude 54(24%)nonimmune specimens and24(11%)samples withlowtiters ofantibody (1:8 to1:16) asdetermined byHAIassay.Usingthese sera, we evaluated two commercial enzyme immunoassay kits (Rubenostika, Organon; Rubazyme, AbbottLaboratories, NorthChicago, 111.), two latex agglutination procedures (Rubalex, Orion; Rubascan, BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.),anda rapid passive hemagglutination procedure (Rubaquick; Abbott), andcompared themwith a standard HAIassay(RubeHIT; Behring, Marburg, Federal Republic ofGermany). TheHAIassaywas donefollowing pretreatment ofsera withkaolin, using reagents, controls, andstabilized human O erythrocytes supplied bythemanufacturer. Serathat were positive only atatiter of1:8byHAIassaywere retitrated to ensure thatthis was nota false-positive reaction. Forall otherprocedures, sera were tested without pretreatment, using reagents andcontrols supplied bythemanufacturer, according totheinstructions ofthemanufacturer. Latex agglutination withRubascan was donebyusing seradiluted 1:10, asrecommended bythemanufacturer toapproximate thelevel ofsensitivity obtained withHAI assaymethods, andalsobyusing undiluted serum samples. Alltests were doneblind; serawere coded, andcomparative results were unknownuntil thetabulation ofalldata. Thesensitivity, specificity, andpositive andnegative predictive values were

Donald E. Low

Papers

1310 eras guidelines-driven upper gastrointestinal contrast study after esophagectomy can detect delayed gastric conduit emptying and improve outcomes

Mo1342 CONTEMPORARY OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC VS. ROBOTIC GIANT PARAESOPHAGEAL HERNIA REPAIR

Systematic review and validation of clinical models predicting survival after oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma.

Evaluation ofa New LatexTestanda New EnzymeImmunoassay forDetermination ofRubella Immunity

Laboratory Diagnosis of Amoebic Keratitis: A Comparison of 4 Diagnostic Methods and 1