Institution
National Health and Medical Research Council
Government•Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia•
About: National Health and Medical Research Council is a government organization based out in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1106 authors who have published 1368 publications receiving 80108 citations. The organization is also known as: NHMRC & nhmrc.gov.au.
Topics: Population, Randomized controlled trial, Health care, Medicine, Cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: A reporting guideline is described, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), which consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review.
Abstract: Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
14,708 citations
TL;DR: The PRISMA-P checklist as mentioned in this paper provides 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol, as well as a model example from an existing published protocol.
Abstract: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.
9,361 citations
TL;DR: In this trial, inhibition of PCSK9 with evolocumab on a background of statin therapy lowered LDL cholesterol levels to a median of 30 mg per deciliter (0.78 mmol per liter) and reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.
Abstract: BackgroundEvolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and lowers low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels by approximately 60%. Whether it prevents cardiovascular events is uncertain. MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) or higher who were receiving statin therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) or matching placebo as subcutaneous injections. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The key secondary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The median duration of follow-up was 2.2 years. ResultsAt 48 weeks, the ...
3,810 citations
Imperial College London1, Anglia Ruskin University2, University of New South Wales3, Brien Holden Vision Institute4, International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness5, Moorfields Eye Hospital6, York Hospital7, Heidelberg University8, L V Prasad Eye Institute9, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary10, Nova Southeastern University11, University of KwaZulu-Natal12, National Health and Medical Research Council13, World Health Organization14, National University of Singapore15, University of Melbourne16, Selçuk University17, University of Miami18, University of Adelaide19, Queen's University Belfast20, Harvard University21, The George Institute for Global Health22, University of Washington23, University of Michigan24, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman25, University of Alabama at Birmingham26, National Institutes of Health27, Johns Hopkins University28, University of São Paulo29, Henry Ford Health System30, University College London31, Sankara Nethralaya32, University of Nairobi33, University of Georgia34, University of Utah35, Federal University of São Paulo36, Yale University37, Alberta Children's Hospital38, University of Illinois at Chicago39, Medical College of Wisconsin40, Novartis41, University of Udine42, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign43, Royal Children's Hospital44, University of Missouri45, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention46, University of Milan47, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai48, Mayo Clinic49, Pan American Health Organization50, University of Indonesia51, University of Pennsylvania52, University of Crete53, University of Southern California54, University of Florence55, Capital Medical University56, Leipzig University57
TL;DR: A series of regression models were fitted to estimate the proportion of moderate or severe vision impairment and blindness by cause, age, region, and year, and found that world regions varied markedly in the causes of blindness and vision impairment in this age group.
1,909 citations
Wellcome Trust1, University of London2, Dana Corporation3, University of Toronto4, Federal University of São Paulo5, Duke University6, University of Wisconsin-Madison7, University of Oxford8, John E. Fogarty International Center9, University of Queensland10, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention11, Harvard University12, Johns Hopkins University13, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences14, King's College London15, University of Ibadan16, Cayetano Heredia University17, University of California, Berkeley18, Indian Institute of Science19, University of Cambridge20, World Health Organization21, Health Canada22, University of Cape Town23, National Health and Medical Research Council24, Medical Research Council25, Canadian Institutes of Health Research26, National Institutes of Health27
TL;DR: A consortium of researchers, advocates and clinicians announces here research priorities for improving the lives of people with mental illness around the world, and calls for urgent action and investment.
Abstract: A consortium of researchers, advocates and clinicians announces here research priorities for improving the lives of people with mental illness around the world, and calls for urgent action and investment.
1,726 citations
Authors
Showing all 1110 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| John E. Morley | 154 | 1377 | 97021 |
| Patrick D. McGorry | 137 | 1097 | 72092 |
| Neville Owen | 127 | 700 | 74166 |
| Anthony F. Jorm | 124 | 798 | 67120 |
| George C Patton | 118 | 578 | 94634 |
| David A. Cooper | 117 | 903 | 69249 |
| Michael Berk | 116 | 1284 | 57743 |
| Helen Christensen | 116 | 596 | 48002 |
| Michael Horowitz | 112 | 982 | 46952 |
| Jonathan C. Craig | 108 | 872 | 59401 |
| Paul W. Hodges | 104 | 604 | 39201 |
| Peter G. Gibson | 103 | 711 | 45722 |
| Robert J. Norman | 103 | 755 | 45147 |
| Gianni Tognoni | 102 | 558 | 50663 |
| Ian B. Hickie | 102 | 897 | 49243 |