Institution
Intermountain Healthcare
Healthcare•Salt Lake City, Utah, United States•
About: Intermountain Healthcare is a healthcare organization based out in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 1186 authors who have published 1765 publications receiving 45307 citations. The organization is also known as: Intermountain & formerly IHC.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Tufts Medical Center1, Northeastern University2, McGill University3, Johns Hopkins University4, Utrecht University5, Vanderbilt University Medical Center6, Brigham and Women's Hospital7, New York University8, McMaster University9, Ohio State University10, Radboud University Nijmegen11, University of Western Ontario12, London Health Sciences Centre13, University of Montpellier14, RMIT University15, University of Poitiers16, Maine Medical Center17, University of Washington18, University of Chicago19, Intermountain Healthcare20, Deakin University21, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine22, Yale University23, University of Grenoble24, University of California, San Francisco25, Monash University26, Case Western Reserve University27, New York Medical College28, University of Toronto29, Stanford University30
TL;DR: Substantial agreement was found among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults.
Abstract: Objective:To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.Design:Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups g
1,935 citations
••
TL;DR: Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups, and outcome analyses were done in patients who were assessed as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes and for whom follow-up data were available.
Abstract: Summary Background Sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) surgery was designed to minimise the side-effects of lymph-node surgery but still offer outcomes equivalent to axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND). The aims of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trial B-32 were to establish whether SLN resection in patients with breast cancer achieves the same survival and regional control as ALND, but with fewer side-effects. Methods NSABP B-32 was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done at 80 centres in Canada and the USA between May 1, 1999, and Feb 29, 2004. Women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to either SLN resection plus ALND (group 1) or to SLN resection alone with ALND only if the SLNs were positive (group 2). Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical Center (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) with a biased coin minimisation approach in an allocation ratio of 1:1. Stratification variables were age at entry (≤49 years, ≥50 years), clinical tumour size (≤2·0 cm, 2·1–4·0 cm, ≥4·1 cm), and surgical plan (lumpectomy, mastectomy). SLN resection was done with a blue dye and radioactive tracer. Outcome analyses were done in patients who were assessed as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes and for whom follow-up data were available. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. All deaths, irrespective of cause, were included. The mean time on study for the SLN-negative patients with follow-up information was 95·6 months (range 70·1–126·7). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00003830. Findings 5611 women were randomly assigned to the treatment groups, 3989 had pathologically negative SLN. 309 deaths were reported in the 3986 SLN-negative patients with follow-up information: 140 of 1975 patients in group 1 and 169 of 2011 in group 2. Log-rank comparison of overall survival in groups 1 and 2 yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1·20 (95% CI 0·96–1·50; p=0·12). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival were 91·8% (95% CI 90·4–93·3) in group 1 and 90·3% (88·8–91·8) in group 2. Treatment comparisons for disease-free survival yielded an unadjusted HR of 1·05 (95% CI 0·90–1·22; p=0·54). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for disease-free survival were 82·4% (80·5–84·4) in group 1 and 81·5% (79·6–83·4) in group 2. There were eight regional-node recurrences as first events in group 1 and 14 in group 2 (p=0·22). Patients are continuing follow-up for longer-term assessment of survival and regional control. The most common adverse events were allergic reactions, mostly related to the administration of the blue dye. Interpretation Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups. When the SLN is negative, SLN surgery alone with no further ALND is an appropriate, safe, and effective therapy for breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. Funding US Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Health and Human Services.
1,440 citations
••
TL;DR: It is found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today-voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators-fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events.
Abstract: Identification and measurement of adverse medical events is central to patient safety, forming a foundation for accountability, prioritizing problems to work on, generating ideas for safer care, and testing which interventions work. We compared three methods to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients, using the same patient sample set from three leading hospitals. We found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today—voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators—fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool found at least ten times more confirmed, serious events than these other methods. Overall, adverse events occurred in one-third of hospital admissions. Reliance on voluntary reporting and the Patient Safety Indicators could produce misleading conclusions about the current safety of care in the US health care system and misdirect efforts to improve patient safety.
902 citations
••
TL;DR: A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014 to provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early stage invasive breast cancer as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: PurposeTo provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer.MethodsA literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.ResultsThe literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide...
670 citations
••
TL;DR: The purpose of this article is to assist in the interpretation and use of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype data for estimating therapeutic warfarin dose to achieve an INR of 2–3, should genotype results be available to the clinician.
Abstract: Warfarin is a widely used anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic index and large interpatient variability in the dose required to achieve target anticoagulation. Common genetic variants in the cytochrome P450-2C9 (CYP2C9) and vitamin K–epoxide reductase complex (VKORC1) enzymes, in addition to known nongenetic factors, account for ~50% of warfarin dose variability. The purpose of this article is to assist in the interpretation and use of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype data for estimating therapeutic warfarin dose to achieve an INR of 2–3, should genotype results be available to the clinician. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) of the National Institutes of Health Pharmacogenomics Research Network develops peer-reviewed gene–drug guidelines that are published and updated periodically on http://www.pharmgkb.org based on new developments in the field. 1 Focused Literature review The Supplementary Notes online include a systematic literature review of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype and warfarin dosing, which forms the basis for this guideline. drug: w arF arin Warfarin (Coumadin and others) is the most commonly used oral anticoagulant worldwide, with annual prescriptions typically equaling 0.5–1.5% of the population. It is prescribed for treatment and prevention of thrombotic disorders. 2 Although highly efficacious, warfarin’s narrow therapeutic index and wide interindividual variability make its dosing notoriously challenging. 3–5 Complications from inappropriate warfarin dosing are among the adverse events most frequently reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and one of the most common reasons for emergency room visits. 6 Warfarin is often dosed empirically: an initial dose is prescribed, typically followed by at least weekly measurement of the INR and subsequent dose adjustment. The initial dose is often based on population averages (e.g., 3–5 mg/day), but stable doses to achieve an INR of 2–3 can range from 1–20 mg/ day. The iterative process to define the appropriate dose can take weeks to months, and during this period patients are at increased risk of over- or under-anticoagulation and thus at risk of thromboembolism or bleeding.
596 citations
Authors
Showing all 1199 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Scott Thomas | 131 | 1219 | 85507 |
Michael Charlton | 79 | 333 | 28494 |
Michael W. Varner | 74 | 405 | 19346 |
Jeffrey L. Anderson | 73 | 300 | 25916 |
John C. Carey | 72 | 399 | 20599 |
Julie M. Fritz | 71 | 252 | 19319 |
Robert M. Silver | 68 | 449 | 16807 |
Ramona O. Hopkins | 68 | 291 | 20024 |
Marc S. Williams | 67 | 414 | 18341 |
Joseph B. Muhlestein | 66 | 311 | 17498 |
Robert D. Christensen | 65 | 462 | 17905 |
Benjamin D. Horne | 64 | 315 | 16214 |
Michael K. Gould | 62 | 299 | 30647 |
Lisa A. Cannon-Albright | 62 | 327 | 28945 |
Stephen J. Swensen | 60 | 150 | 10031 |