Institution
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Government•Atlanta, Georgia, United States•
About: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a government organization based out in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Public health. The organization has 58238 authors who have published 82592 publications receiving 4405701 citations. The organization is also known as: CDC & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Topics: Population, Public health, Poison control, Vaccination, Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, University of Washington2, University College London3, Qatar Foundation4, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences5, University of Otago6, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham7, University of Melbourne8, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center9, Burnet Institute10, Universiti Sains Malaysia11, George Mason University12, Dartmouth College13, Tehran University of Medical Sciences14, University of California, San Diego15, University of Bristol16, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center17, Environment Agency18, University of Chicago19, Erasmus University Rotterdam20, Case Western Reserve University21, Cancer Treatment Centers of America22, Bayer23, Tufts Medical Center24, Stanford University25, National Research University – Higher School of Economics26, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention27, Jackson State University28, Wuhan University29, Mansoura University30, Imperial College London31
TL;DR: The enormous health loss attributable to viral hepatitis, and the availability of effective vaccines and treatments, suggests an important opportunity to improve public health.
1,081 citations
TL;DR: A dose-escalation, single-centre, open-label, non-randomised, phase 1 trial of an Ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine expressing the spike glycoprotein of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strain to assess the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.
1,081 citations
TL;DR: It was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak, but clinical trials should be designed to validate a standard protocol for dosage and timing and to accrue data in real time during future outbreaks to monitor specific adverse effects and help inform treatment.
Abstract: Background
The SARS outbreak of 2002-2003 presented clinicians with a new, life-threatening disease for which they had no experience in treating and no research on the effectiveness of treatment options The World Health Organization ( WHO) expert panel on SARS treatment requested a systematic review and comprehensive summary of treatments used for SARS-infected patients in order to guide future treatment and identify priorities for research
Methods and Findings
In response to the WHO request we conducted a systematic review of the published literature on ribavirin, corticosteroids, lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r), type I interferon (IFN), intravenous immunoglobulin ( IVIG), and SARS convalescent plasma from both in vitro studies and in SARS patients We also searched for clinical trial evidence of treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome Sources of data were the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL) up to February 2005 Data from publications were extracted and evidence within studies was classified using predefined criteria In total, 54 SARS treatment studies, 15 in vitro studies, and three acute respiratory distress syndrome studies met our inclusion criteria Within in vitro studies, ribavirin, lopinavir, and type I IFN showed inhibition of SARS-CoV in tissue culture In SARS-infected patient reports on ribavirin, 26 studies were classified as inconclusive, and four showed possible harm Seven studies of convalescent plasma or IVIG, three of IFN type I, and two of LPV/r were inconclusive In 29 studies of steroid use, 25 were inconclusive and four were classified as causing possible harm
Conclusions
Despite an extensive literature reporting on SARS treatments, it was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak Some may have been harmful Clinical trials should be designed to validate a standard protocol for dosage and timing, and to accrue data in real time during future outbreaks to monitor specific adverse effects and help inform treatment
1,079 citations
1,074 citations
TL;DR: Analyses of the pairwise distances demonstrated three clearly resolved peaks, suggesting that NoV strains beneath the species level can be classified at three levels: strain (S), cluster (C), and genogroup (G).
1,074 citations
Authors
Showing all 58382 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham A. Colditz | 261 | 1542 | 256034 |
| David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
| Bernard Rosner | 190 | 1162 | 147661 |
| Richard Peto | 183 | 683 | 231434 |
| Aaron R. Folsom | 181 | 1118 | 134044 |
| Didier Raoult | 173 | 3267 | 153016 |
| James F. Sallis | 169 | 825 | 144836 |
| David R. Jacobs | 165 | 1262 | 113892 |
| Steven N. Blair | 165 | 879 | 132929 |
| Gordon J. Freeman | 164 | 579 | 105193 |
| Dennis R. Burton | 164 | 683 | 90959 |
| Rory Collins | 162 | 489 | 193407 |
| Ali H. Mokdad | 156 | 634 | 160599 |
| Caroline S. Fox | 155 | 599 | 138951 |
| Paul Elliott | 153 | 773 | 103839 |