Institution
King Saud Medical City
Healthcare•Riyadh, Saudi Arabia•
About: King Saud Medical City is a healthcare organization based out in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Population. The organization has 1095 authors who have published 831 publications receiving 11680 citations. The organization is also known as: King Saud Medical City.
Papers
More filters
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Rhode Island Hospital6, Brown University7, 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: Disease caused by MERS-CoV presents with a wide range of clinical manifestations and is associated with substantial mortality in admitted patients who have medical comorbidities, and major gaps in knowledge of the epidemiology, community prevalence, and clinical spectrum of infection and disease need urgent definition.
Abstract: Summary Background Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a new human disease caused by a novel coronavirus (CoV). Clinical data on MERS-CoV infections are scarce. We report epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of 47 cases of MERS-CoV infections, identify knowledge gaps, and define research priorities. Methods We abstracted and analysed epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data from confirmed cases of sporadic, household, community, and health-care-associated MERS-CoV infections reported from Saudi Arabia between Sept 1, 2012, and June 15, 2013. Cases were confirmed as having MERS-CoV by real-time RT-PCR. Findings 47 individuals (46 adults, one child) with laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV disease were identified; 36 (77%) were male (male:female ratio 3·3:1). 28 patients died, a 60% case-fatality rate. The case-fatality rate rose with increasing age. Only two of the 47 cases were previously healthy; most patients (45 [96%]) had underlying comorbid medical disorders, including diabetes (32 [68%]), hypertension (16 [34%]), chronic cardiac disease (13 [28%]), and chronic renal disease (23 [49%]). Common symptoms at presentation were fever (46 [98%]), fever with chills or rigors (41 [87%]), cough (39 [83%]), shortness of breath (34 [72%]), and myalgia (15 [32%]). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also frequent, including diarrhoea (12 [26%]), vomiting (ten [21%]), and abdominal pain (eight [17%]). All patients had abnormal findings on chest radiography, ranging from subtle to extensive unilateral and bilateral abnormalities. Laboratory analyses showed raised concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase (23 [49%]) and aspartate aminotransferase (seven [15%]) and thrombocytopenia (17 [36%]) and lymphopenia (16 [34%]). Interpretation Disease caused by MERS-CoV presents with a wide range of clinical manifestations and is associated with substantial mortality in admitted patients who have medical comorbidities. Major gaps in our knowledge of the epidemiology, community prevalence, and clinical spectrum of infection and disease need urgent definition. Funding None.
1,275 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a method to solve the problem of homonymity in the context of cancer diagnosis.http://www.thelancet.com Vol 395 March 28, 202
1,185 citations
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Utrecht University7, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital8, Peking Union Medical College Hospital9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Ulsan11, National Institutes of Health12, Imperial College London13, United Arab Emirates University14, Humanitas University15, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust16, Emory University Hospital17, University at Buffalo18, Baylor College of Medicine19, University of Milano-Bicocca20, King Abdulaziz Medical City21, King Saud Medical City22, The George Institute for Global Health23, University of Virginia24, University of Washington25
TL;DR: A panel of 36 experts from 12 countries issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: 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 evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
832 citations
University of Nottingham1, King Saud Medical City2, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh3, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram4, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention5, Ljubljana University Medical Centre6, Kantonsspital St. Gallen7, Institut de veille sanitaire8, Children's Hospital at Westmead9, Mexican Social Security Institute10, Medical University of Vienna11, Capital Medical University12, University of Barcelona13, University of Colorado Denver14, State University of West Paraná15, Sheba Medical Center16, University of Manitoba17, Peking University18, National Institutes of Health19, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón20, Statens Serum Institut21, Imperial College London22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Dhaka Medical College and Hospital25, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre26, Gold Coast Hospital27, Tehran University of Medical Sciences28, University of Oxford29, University of Zagreb30, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital31, Stellenbosch University32, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences33, Tan Tock Seng Hospital34, University of Helsinki35, China Medical University (PRC)36, King Hussein Cancer Center37, University of Toronto38, Alfaisal University39, Erciyes University40, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences41, Military Medical Academy42, Haukeland University Hospital43, University of Bergen44, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services45, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine46, University of Birmingham47, Rambam Health Care Campus48, Vanderbilt University49, Charité50, University of Bristol51, Yüzüncü Yıl University52, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation53, Rzeszów University54, University Hospital of Basel55, Medical University of Warsaw56, University of Alberta Hospital57, University of Alberta58, University of Hong Kong59, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases60, VU University Medical Center61
TL;DR: There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset, and early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality risk.
527 citations
Authors
Showing all 1124 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ziad A. Memish | 112 | 686 | 136145 |
| Majid A Almadi | 25 | 137 | 3373 |
| Brahim Tabarki | 24 | 74 | 2258 |
| Amal Alhashem | 24 | 86 | 2213 |
| Khaled Alkattan | 23 | 91 | 1418 |
| Assim A. Alfadda | 23 | 93 | 2148 |
| Ali Albarrak | 21 | 35 | 3798 |
| Abdulaziz Ali Alghamdi | 21 | 80 | 1885 |
| Ziad A. Memish | 20 | 64 | 1362 |
| Ziad A. Memish | 19 | 30 | 1559 |
| Ambreen Kazi | 18 | 38 | 819 |
| Abdulrahman K. Al-Asmari | 18 | 63 | 1040 |
| Osama Sarhan | 17 | 59 | 919 |
| Abdulaziz Bin Saeed | 16 | 23 | 703 |
| Dimitrios Karakitsos | 15 | 59 | 559 |