scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Boston University

EducationBoston, Massachusetts, United States
About: Boston University is a education organization based out in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 48688 authors who have published 119622 publications receiving 6276020 citations. The organization is also known as: BU & Boston U.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The purpose of this review is to synthesize the current understanding of the molecular regulation of muscle atrophy, and discusses how ongoing work should uncover more about the molecular underpinnings of muscle wasting, particularly that due to disuse.
Abstract: Skeletal muscle atrophy attributable to muscular inactivity has significant adverse functional consequences. While the initiating physiological event leading to atrophy seems to be the loss of musc...

904 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale that assesses bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist, is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation and may be well suited to colonoscopy outcomes research.

902 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
08 May 2018-JAMA
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men.
Abstract: Importance In the United States, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is approximately 11%, and the lifetime risk of dying of prostate cancer is 2.5%. The median age of death from prostate cancer is 80 years. Many men with prostate cancer never experience symptoms and, without screening, would never know they have the disease. African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer have an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with other men. Objective To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostate cancer. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a review of existing decision analysis models and the overdiagnosis rate of PSA-based screening. The reviews also examined the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening in patient subpopulations at higher risk of prostate cancer, including older men, African American men, and men with a family history of prostate cancer. Findings Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened. Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, diagnostic harms from biopsies, and harms from treatment. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men. How each man weighs specific benefits and harms will determine whether the overall net benefit is small. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the potential benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older do not outweigh the expected harms. Conclusions and Recommendation For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic PSA-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one and should include discussion of the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older. (D recommendation)

902 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A 66-year-old woman who is overweight reports bilateral knee pain of gradual onset during the past several months that increasingly has limited her activities and last week, when walking down the stairs, she nearly fell when her knee gave way.
Abstract: A 66-year-old woman who is overweight reports bilateral knee pain of gradual onset during the past several months that increasingly has limited her activities. Last week, when walking down the stairs, she nearly fell when her knee gave way. She does not recall having injured her knee, and she has no morning stiffness and no pain in other joints. She has tried taking up to eight extra-strength (500 mg each) acetaminophen tablets daily without success and has never had ulcers or stomach bleeding. How should the patient be evaluated and treated?

901 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The AIMS2 is a revised and expanded health status questionnaire with excellent measurement properties that should be useful in arthritis clinical trials and in outcomes research.
Abstract: Objective. The goal of this project was to develop a more comprehensive and sensitive version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). Methods. AIMS scale items were revised, and 3 new scales were added to evaluate arm function, work, and social support. Sections were also added to assess satisfaction with function, attribution of problems to arthritis, and self-designation of priority areas for improvement. The new instrument was designated the AIMS2. A pilot test of format and content and a performance test of reliability and validity were carried out. Results. Questionnaire completion times in a pilot study of 24 subjects averaged 23 minutes, and evaluations were positive regarding the instrument's length and ease of completion, and the subjects' willingness to complete serial forms and return them by mail. Measurement performance was tested in 408 subjects: 299 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 109 with osteoarthritis (OA); 45 of these subjects completed a second AIMS2 within 3 weeks. Internal consistency coefficients for the 12 scales were 0.72—0.91 in the RA group and 0.74—0.96 in the OA group. Test-retest reliability was 0.78—0.94. All within-scale factor analyses produced single factors, except for mobility level in OA. Validity analyses in both the RA and the OA groups showed that patient designation of an area as a problem or as a priority for improvement was significantly associated with a poorer AIMS2 scale score in that area. Reliability, factor analysis, and validity results were consistent in age, sex, and education subgroups. Satisfaction was moderately correlated with level of function in the same health status area, and the satisfaction items formed a reliable scale. Responses to the arthritis attribution items showed that most dysfunction in this sample was due to arthritis. Conclusion. The AIMS2 is a revised and expanded health status questionnaire with excellent measurement properties that should be useful in arthritis clinical trials and in outcomes research.

901 citations


Authors

Showing all 49233 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Walter C. Willett3342399413322
Robert Langer2812324326306
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
Ronald C. Kessler2741332328983
JoAnn E. Manson2701819258509
Albert Hofman2672530321405
George M. Whitesides2401739269833
Paul M. Ridker2331242245097
Eugene Braunwald2301711264576
Ralph B. D'Agostino2261287229636
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Daniel Levy212933194778
Christopher J L Murray209754310329
Tamara B. Harris2011143163979
André G. Uitterlinden1991229156747
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

99% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

98% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

98% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

98% related

Johns Hopkins University
249.2K papers, 14M citations

98% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023223
2022810
20216,942
20206,837
20196,120
20185,593