Institution
HealthPartners
Nonprofit•Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States•
About: HealthPartners is a nonprofit organization based out in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 2639 authors who have published 4088 publications receiving 117747 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Minnesota1, State University of New York System2, University of Washington3, Laval University4, Malmö University5, Aarhus University Hospital6, Aarhus University7, VU University Amsterdam8, University of Naples Federico II9, University of Michigan10, University of Zurich11, Johns Hopkins University12, University of Copenhagen13, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven14, University of Kentucky15, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill16, University of Sydney17, HealthPartners18, University of Minnesota System19, University of Auvergne20
TL;DR: The newly recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings and includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain- related TMD.
Abstract: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a significant public health problem affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population.1 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition (after chronic low back pain) resulting in pain and disability.1 Pain-related TMD can impact the individual's daily activities, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Overall, the annual TMD management cost in the USA, not including imaging, has doubled in the last decade to $4 billion.1
Patients often seek consultation with dentists for their TMD, especially for pain-related TMD. Diagnostic criteria for TMD with simple, clear, reliable, and valid operational definitions for the history, examination, and imaging procedures are needed to render physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. In addition, biobehavioral assessment of pain-related behavior and psychosocial functioning—an essential part of the diagnostic process—is required and provides the minimal information whereby one can determine whether the patient's pain disorder, especially when chronic, warrants further multidisciplinary assessment. Taken together, a new dual-axis Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) will provide evidence-based criteria for the clinician to use when assessing patients, and will facilitate communication regarding consultations, referrals, and prognosis.2
The research community benefits from the ability to use well-defined and clinically relevant characteristics associated with the phenotype in order to facilitate more generalizable research. When clinicians and researchers use the same criteria, taxonomy, and nomenclature, then clinical questions and experience can be more easily transferred into relevant research questions, and research findings are more accessible to clinicians to better diagnose and manage their patients. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) have been the most widely employed diagnostic protocol for TMD research since its publication in 1992.3 This classification system was based on the biopsychosocial model of pain4 that included an Axis I physical assessment, using reliable and well-operationalized diagnostic criteria, and an Axis II assessment of psychosocial status and pain-related disability. The intent was to simultaneously provide a physical diagnosis and identify other relevant characteristics of the patient that could influence the expression and thus management of their TMD. Indeed, the longer the pain persists, the greater the potential for emergence and amplification of cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors, with resultant enhanced pain sensitivity, greater likelihood of additional pain persistence, and reduced probability of success from standard treatments.5
The RDC/TMD (1992) was intended to be only a first step toward improved TMD classification, and the authors stated the need for future investigation of the accuracy of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms in terms of reliability and criterion validity—the latter involving the use of credible reference standard diagnoses. Also recommended was further assessment of the clinical utility of the Axis II instruments. The original RDC/TMD Axis I physical diagnoses have content validity based on the critical review by experts of the published diagnostic approach in use at that time and were tested using population-based epidemiologic data.6 Subsequently, a multicenter study showed that, for the most common TMD, the original RDC/TMD diagnoses exhibited sufficient reliability for clinical use.7 While the validity of the individual RDC/TMD diagnoses has been extensively investigated, assessment of the criterion validity for the complete spectrum of RDC/TMD diagnoses had been absent until recently.8
For the original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments, good evidence for their reliability and validity for measuring psychosocial status and pain-related disability already existed when the classification system was published.9–13 Subsequently, a variety of studies have demonstrated the significance and utility of the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures in such areas as predicting outcomes of clinical trials, escalation from acute to chronic pain, and experimental laboratory settings.14–20
Other studies have shown that the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures are incomplete in terms of prediction of disease course.21–23 The overall utility of the biobehavioral measures in routine clinical settings has, however, yet to be demonstrated, in part because most studies have to date focused on Axis I diagnoses rather than Axis II biobehavioral factors.24
The aims of this article are to present the evidence-based new Axis I and Axis II DC/TMD to be used in both clinical and research settings, as well as present the processes related to their development.
2,283 citations
••
TL;DR: The new definition recognizes the multifactorial nature of dry eye as a disease where loss of homeostasis of the tear film is the central pathophysiological concept and central to the scheme is a positive diagnosis of DED with signs and symptoms, and this is directed towards management to restore homeostosis.
Abstract: The goals of the TFOS DEWS II Definition and Classification Subcommittee were to create an evidence-based definition and a contemporary classification system for dry eye disease (DED). The new definition recognizes the multifactorial nature of dry eye as a disease where loss of homeostasis of the tear film is the central pathophysiological concept. Ocular symptoms, as a broader term that encompasses reports of discomfort or visual disturbance, feature in the definition and the key etiologies of tear film instability, hyperosmolarity, and ocular surface inflammation and damage were determined to be important for inclusion in the definition. In the light of new data, neurosensory abnormalities were also included in the definition for the first time. In the classification of DED, recent evidence supports a scheme based on the pathophysiology where aqueous deficient and evaporative dry eye exist as a continuum, such that elements of each are considered in diagnosis and management. Central to the scheme is a positive diagnosis of DED with signs and symptoms, and this is directed towards management to restore homeostasis. The scheme also allows consideration of various related manifestations, such as non-obvious disease involving ocular surface signs without related symptoms, including neurotrophic conditions where dysfunctional sensation exists, and cases where symptoms exist without demonstrable ocular surface signs, including neuropathic pain. This approach is not intended to override clinical assessment and judgment but should prove helpful in guiding clinical management and research.
1,758 citations
••
Dartmouth College1, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center2, HealthPartners3, University of Missouri4, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai5, Georgia Regents University6, Arizona State University7, Baylor College of Medicine8, University of Massachusetts Medical School9, University of California, San Francisco10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of Minnesota12
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Abstract: Description: Update of the 2002 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. Methods: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement)
1,405 citations
••
Case Western Reserve University1, Wake Forest University2, SUNY Downstate Medical Center3, Medical University of South Carolina4, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center5, University of Cincinnati6, University of Minnesota7, Veterans Health Administration8, University of Maryland, Baltimore9, Eli Lilly and Company10, Oregon Health & Science University11, New York University12, HealthPartners13, University of Michigan14, Albert Einstein College of Medicine15, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences16, Henry Ford Hospital17
TL;DR: Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy.
1,174 citations
••
TL;DR: The increased use of CT in pediatrics, combined with the wide variability in radiation doses, has resulted in many children receiving a high-dose examination, and dose-reduction strategies targeted to the highest quartile of doses could dramatically reduce the number of radiation-induced cancers.
Abstract: Importance Increased use of computed tomography (CT) in pediatrics raises concerns about cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation. Objectives To quantify trends in the use of CT in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and cancer risk. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting Seven US health care systems. Participants The use of CT was evaluated for children younger than 15 years of age from 1996 to 2010, including 4 857 736 child-years of observation. Radiation doses were calculated for 744 CT scans performed between 2001 and 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures Rates of CT use, organ and effective doses, and projected lifetime attributable risks of cancer. Results The use of CT doubled for children younger than 5 years of age and tripled for children 5 to 14 years of age between 1996 and 2005, remained stable between 2006 and 2007, and then began to decline. Effective doses varied from 0.03 to 69.2 mSv per scan. An effective dose of 20 mSv or higher was delivered by 14% to 25% of abdomen/pelvis scans, 6% to 14% of spine scans, and 3% to 8% of chest scans. Projected lifetime attributable risks of solid cancer were higher for younger patients and girls than for older patients and boys, and they were also higher for patients who underwent CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis or spine than for patients who underwent other types of CT scans. For girls, a radiation-induced solid cancer is projected to result from every 300 to 390 abdomen/pelvis scans, 330 to 480 chest scans, and 270 to 800 spine scans, depending on age. The risk of leukemia was highest from head scans for children younger than 5 years of age at a rate of 1.9 cases per 10 000 CT scans. Nationally, 4 million pediatric CT scans of the head, abdomen/pelvis, chest, or spine performed each year are projected to cause 4870 future cancers. Reducing the highest 25% of doses to the median might prevent 43% of these cancers. Conclusions and Relevance The increased use of CT in pediatrics, combined with the wide variability in radiation doses, has resulted in many children receiving a high-dose examination. Dose-reduction strategies targeted to the highest quartile of doses could dramatically reduce the number of radiation-induced cancers.
1,128 citations
Authors
Showing all 2676 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robin M. Murray | 171 | 1539 | 116362 |
Gregory Y.H. Lip | 169 | 3159 | 171742 |
Philip McGuire | 133 | 881 | 60813 |
Stephen F. Badylak | 133 | 530 | 57083 |
Jim van Os | 118 | 852 | 87111 |
Anthony S. David | 116 | 817 | 53284 |
Jeffrey N. Katz | 114 | 695 | 56439 |
Shitij Kapur | 108 | 476 | 46848 |
Paul A. Anderson | 107 | 560 | 41797 |
David S. Celermajer | 103 | 695 | 54342 |
Kathryn M. Edwards | 102 | 628 | 39467 |
Gregory E. Simon | 98 | 306 | 34681 |
Munir Pirmohamed | 97 | 675 | 39822 |
Lucilla Poston | 91 | 565 | 32452 |
Paolo Fusar-Poli | 89 | 469 | 27952 |