Institution
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences
Education•Riyadh, Saudi Arabia•
About: King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences is a education organization based out in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 4611 authors who have published 5069 publications receiving 77006 citations. The organization is also known as: KSAUHS & KSAU-HS.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Washington1, Sapienza University of Rome2, Mekelle University3, University of Texas at San Antonio4, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences5, Debre markos University6, Emory University7, University of Oxford8, University of Cartagena9, United Nations Population Fund10, University of Birmingham11, Stanford University12, Aga Khan University13, University of Melbourne14, National Taiwan University15, University of Cambridge16, University of California, San Diego17, Public Health Foundation of India18, Public Health England19, University of Peradeniya20, Harvard University21, National Institutes of Health22, Tehran University of Medical Sciences23, Auckland University of Technology24, University of Sheffield25, University of Western Australia26, Karolinska Institutet27, Birzeit University28, Brandeis University29, American Cancer Society30, Ochsner Medical Center31, Yonsei University32, University of Bristol33, Heidelberg University34, Vanderbilt University35, South African Medical Research Council36, Jordan University of Science and Technology37, New Generation University College38, Northeastern University39, Simmons College40, Norwegian Institute of Public Health41, Boston University42, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention43, University of Bari44, University of São Paulo45, University of Otago46, University of Crete47, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh48, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center49, Teikyo University50, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre51, University of Tokyo52, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health53, Heriot-Watt University54, University of Alabama at Birmingham55, Griffith University56, National Center for Disease Control and Public Health57, University of California, Irvine58, Johns Hopkins University59, New York University60, University of Queensland61, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais62, National Research University – Higher School of Economics63, University of Bergen64, Columbia University65, Shandong University66, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill67, Fujita Health University68, Korea University69, Chongqing Medical University70, Zhejiang University71
TL;DR: The global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013 is estimated using a spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression model to estimate prevalence with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
9,180 citations
••
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Rhode Island Hospital7, Utrecht University8, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences9, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital10, Peking Union Medical College Hospital11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Humanitas University13, University of Ulsan14, National Institutes of Health15, Imperial College London16, United Arab Emirates University17, Population Health Research Institute18, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust19, Emory University Hospital20, University at Buffalo21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Milano-Bicocca23, King Abdulaziz Medical City24, King Saud Medical City25, Royal North Shore Hospital26, The George Institute for Global Health27, University of Virginia28, University of Washington29
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.
We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
1,762 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.
Abstract: As with other fields, medical sciences are subject to different sources of bias. While understanding sources of bias is a key element for drawing valid conclusions, bias in health research continues to be a very sensitive issue that can affect the focus and outcome of investigations. Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification, is one of the most common sources of bias that affects the validity of health research. It originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements. This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems. Specifying the types of bias can be essential to limit its effects and, the use of adjustment methods might serve to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.
1,349 citations
••
TL;DR: In adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension, early bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy decreased intrac Cranial pressure and the length of stay in the ICU but was associated with more unfavorable outcomes.
Abstract: Patients in the craniectomy group, as compared with those in the standard-care group, had less time with intracranial pressures above the treatment threshold (P<0.001), fewer interventions for increased intracranial pressure (P<0.02 for all comparisons), and fewer days in the intensive care unit (ICU) (P<0.001). However, patients undergoing craniectomy had worse scores on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale than those receiving standard care (odds ratio for a worse score in the craniectomy group, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.24; P = 0.03) and a greater risk of an unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 4.26; P = 0.02). Rates of death at 6 months were similar in the craniectomy group (19%) and the standard-care group (18%). Conclusions In adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension, early bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy decreased intracranial pressure and the length of stay in the ICU but was associated with more unfavorable outcomes. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; DECRA Australian Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN012605000009617.)
1,224 citations
••
TL;DR: Streamlining of workflows for rapid diagnosis and isolation, clinical management, and infection prevention will matter not only to patients with COVID-19, but also to health-care workers and other patients who are at risk from nosocomial transmission.
1,147 citations
Authors
Showing all 4644 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Mohammad Hassan Murad | 90 | 433 | 33176 |
Henk G. Schmidt | 82 | 361 | 25410 |
Yaseen M. Arabi | 76 | 488 | 25995 |
Robert A. Fowler | 68 | 330 | 21575 |
Simon Finfer | 62 | 283 | 22057 |
Mouaz H. Al-Mallah | 56 | 408 | 12751 |
David J. Beech | 55 | 219 | 10206 |
Ali H. Hajeer | 54 | 238 | 9851 |
Paul J. Limburg | 53 | 221 | 9447 |
Muhammad Asim Khan | 51 | 183 | 13418 |
Nasser M. Al-Daghri | 49 | 338 | 8543 |
Steven J. Keteyian | 49 | 220 | 10909 |
Hanan H. Balkhy | 48 | 180 | 9970 |
Martha Lappas | 47 | 229 | 7275 |
Hala Tamim | 46 | 183 | 6174 |