Institution
Medical University of South Carolina
Education•Charleston, South Carolina, United States•
About: Medical University of South Carolina is a education organization based out in Charleston, South Carolina, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 23436 authors who have published 45440 publications receiving 1769397 citations. The organization is also known as: MUSC & Medical College of the State of South Carolina.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Medicine, Cancer, Stroke
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This work highlights a key role for interactions between hyaluronan and tumour cells in several aspects of malignancy and indicates the possibility of new therapeutic strategies.
Abstract: Hyaluronan is an extracellular and cell-surface-associated polysaccharide that is traditionally regarded as a biological 'goo' that participates in lubricating joints or holding together gel-like connective tissues. Although these are common physiological roles of hyaluronan in adult organisms, hyaluronan also functions as a microenvironmental cue that co-regulates cell behaviour during embryonic development, healing processes, inflammation and tumour development. Recent work highlights a key role for interactions between hyaluronan and tumour cells in several aspects of malignancy and indicates the possibility of new therapeutic strategies.
1,910 citations
Radboud University Nijmegen1, University of Michigan2, University of Toronto3, McGill University4, University of Basel5, University of Florence6, Auckland City Hospital7, University of Pittsburgh8, Complutense University of Madrid9, Charité10, University of California, Los Angeles11, University College London12, University of Zurich13, University of Paris14, Marche Polytechnic University15, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston16, Newcastle University17, University of Pécs18, Georgetown University19, Istanbul University20, Medical University of Białystok21, University of Giessen22, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli23, University College Dublin24, Stanford University25, University of Colorado Denver26, Amgen27, Medical College of Wisconsin28, University of Alabama at Birmingham29, National Health Service30, University of Manchester31, Rutgers University32, Thomas Jefferson University33, University of Toledo34, Boston University35, University of Pennsylvania36, Medical University of South Carolina37, Northwestern University38, University of Western Ontario39
TL;DR: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
Abstract: Objective The 1980 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity for early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. The present work, by a joint committee of the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), was undertaken for the purpose of developing new classification criteria for SSc. Methods Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multicriteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items and simplifying weights. The system was tested by (1) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders, and (2) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. Results It was determined that skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints is sufficient for the patient to be classified as having SSc; if that is not present, seven additive items apply, with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, fingertip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud9s phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ACR classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc according to the 1980 ACR criteria were classified as SSc with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. Conclusions The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.
1,899 citations
The Catholic University of America1, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital2, University of Toronto3, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health4, Università Campus Bio-Medico5, University of Eastern Finland6, Monash University7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Paris 12 Val de Marne University9, University of Regensburg10, University of Brescia11, University of Göttingen12, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center13, University of Siena14, University College London15, Copenhagen University Hospital16, Fukushima Medical University17, University of Tübingen18
TL;DR: These guidelines provide an up-date of previous IFCN report on “Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application” and include some recent extensions and developments.
1,850 citations
TL;DR: Effective dose provides an approximate indicator of potential detriment from ionizing radiation and should be used as one parameter in evaluating the appropriateness of examinations involving ionizing Radiation.
Abstract: Medical uses of radiation have grown very rapidly over the past decade, and, as of 2007, medical uses represent the largest source of exposure to the U.S. population. Most physicians have difficulty assessing the magnitude of exposure or potential risk. Effective dose provides an approximate indicator of potential detriment from ionizing radiation and should be used as one parameter in evaluating the appropriateness of examinations involving ionizing radiation. The purpose of this review is to provide a compilation of effective doses for radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures. Standard radiographic examinations have average effective doses that vary by over a factor of 1000 (0.01-10 mSv). Computed tomographic examinations tend to be in a more narrow range but have relatively high average effective doses (approximately 2-20 mSv), and average effective doses for interventional procedures usually range from 5-70 mSv. Average effective dose for most nuclear medicine procedures varies between 0.3 and 20 mSv. These doses can be compared with the average annual effective dose from background radiation of about 3 mSv.
1,736 citations
University of Rhode Island1, Favaloro University2, Brigham and Women's Hospital3, University of Colorado Denver4, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai5, University of Sydney6, University Hospital of Wales7, University of Paris8, University of Pennsylvania9, University of Southern California10, Medical University of South Carolina11
TL;DR: Practice guidelines are presented for diagnosis and treatment of patients with thyroid-related medical issues just before and during pregnancy and in the postpartum interval, including evidence-based approaches to assessing the cause of the condition, treating it, and managing hypothyroidism.
Abstract: Objective: The aim was to update the guidelines for the management of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy and postpartum published previously in 2007. A summary of changes between the 2007 and 2012 version is identified in the Supplemental Data (published on The Endocrine Society's Journals Online web site at http://jcem.endojournals.org). Evidence: This evidence-based guideline was developed according to the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, grading items level A, B, C, D, or I, on the basis of the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms) as well as the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Consensus Process: The guideline was developed through a series of e-mails, conference calls, and one face-to-face meeting. An initial draft was prepared by the Task Force, with the help of a medical writer, and reviewed and commented on by members of The Endocri...
1,707 citations
Authors
Showing all 23601 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edward Giovannucci | 206 | 1671 | 179875 |
| Ronald Klein | 194 | 1305 | 149140 |
| Peter W.F. Wilson | 181 | 680 | 139852 |
| Yusuke Nakamura | 179 | 2076 | 160313 |
| John J.V. McMurray | 178 | 1389 | 184502 |
| Nora D. Volkow | 165 | 958 | 107463 |
| L. Joseph Melton | 161 | 531 | 97861 |
| Gregg C. Fonarow | 161 | 1676 | 126516 |
| Michael Boehnke | 152 | 511 | 136681 |
| Charles B. Nemeroff | 149 | 979 | 90426 |
| Deepak L. Bhatt | 149 | 1973 | 114652 |
| Clifford R. Jack | 140 | 965 | 94814 |
| Scott D. Solomon | 137 | 1145 | 103041 |
| Karl Swedberg | 136 | 706 | 111214 |
| Charles J. Yeo | 136 | 672 | 76424 |