Institution
Primary Children's Hospital
Healthcare•Salt Lake City, Utah, United States•
About: Primary Children's Hospital 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 1770 authors who have published 2594 publications receiving 107857 citations. The organization is also known as: Intermountain Primary Children's Medical Center & Intermountain Primary Children's Hospital.
Topics: Population, Health care, Transplantation, Poison control, Medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of British Columbia1, University of Toronto2, University of Oklahoma3, Cleveland Clinic4, Nationwide Children's Hospital5, Primary Children's Hospital6, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center7, Boston Children's Hospital8, University of California, Los Angeles9, Stanford University10, University of Vermont11, University of Pittsburgh12, McGill University13, University of California, San Francisco14, Dalhousie University15, Harvard University16, Children's Memorial Hospital17, Mayo Clinic18, Duke University19, Baylor College of Medicine20, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center21, University of Southern California22, University of Louisville23, Yeshiva University24
TL;DR: The EULAR/PRES criteria minimally improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for Wegener's granulomatosis among a narrow spectrum of children with AAVs.
Abstract: Objective
To compare the criteria for Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) with those of the European League Against Rheumatism/Pediatric Rheumatology European Society (EULAR/PRES) in a cohort of children with WG and other antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAVs), and to describe the interval to diagnosis, presenting features, and initial treatment for WG.
Methods
Eligible patients had been diagnosed by site rheumatologists (termed the “MD diagnosis”) since 2004. This diagnosis was used as a reference standard for sensitivity and specificity testing of the 2 WG classification criteria. Descriptive analyses were confined to ACR-classified WG patients.
Results
MD diagnoses of 117 patients (82 of whom were female) were WG (n = 76), microscopic polyangiitis (n = 17), ANCA-positive pauci-immune glomerulonephritis (n = 5), Churg-Strauss syndrome (n = 2), and unclassified vasculitis (n = 17). The sensitivities of the ACR and EULAR/PRES classification criteria for WG among the spectrum of AAVs were 68.4% and 73.6%, respectively, and the specificities were 68.3% and 73.2%, respectively. Two more children were identified as having WG by the EULAR/PRES criteria than by the ACR criteria. For the 65 ACR-classified WG patients, the median age at diagnosis was 14.2 years (range 4–17 years), and the median interval from symptom onset to diagnosis was 2.7 months (range 0–49 months). The most frequent presenting features by organ system were constitutional (89.2%), pulmonary (80.0%), ear, nose, and throat (80.0%), and renal (75.4%). Fifty-four patients (83.1%) commenced treatment with the combination of corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide, with widely varying regimens; the remainder received methotrexate alone (n = 1), corticosteroids alone (n = 4), or a combination (n = 6).
Conclusion
The EULAR/PRES criteria minimally improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for WG among a narrow spectrum of children with AAVs. Diagnostic delays may result from poor characterization of childhood WG. Initial therapy varied considerably among participating centers.
147 citations
••
TL;DR: In the post–pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era, seasonal increases in respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus, and human metapneumovirus infections in children were associated with increased pediatric admissions with invasive pneumococcal disease, especially pneumonia caused by nonvaccine serotypes.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to demonstrate correlations between invasive pneumococcal disease in children and circulating respiratory viruses. METHODS. This retrospective study included 6 winter respiratory viral seasons (2001–2007) in Intermountain Healthcare, an integrated health system in the Intermountain West, including Primary Children9s Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Children RESULTS. A total of 435 children with invasive pneumococcal disease and 203 with culture-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease were hospitalized in an Intermountain Healthcare facility or Primary Children9s Medical Center during the study period. During the same period, 6963 children with respiratory syncytial virus, 1860 with influenza virus, 1459 with parainfluenza virus, and 818 with adenoviruses were evaluated at Primary Children9s Medical Center. A total of 253 children with human metapneumovirus were identified during the last 5 months of the study. There were correlations between invasive pneumococcal disease and seasonal respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus, and human metapneumovirus activity. The correlation with invasive pneumococcal disease was strong up to 4 weeks after respiratory syncytial virus activity. For influenza virus and human metapneumovirus, the correlations were strong at 2 weeks after activity of these viruses. Pneumonia was the most common clinical disease associated with culture-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease, mostly attributable to serotypes 1, 19A, 3, and 7F. CONCLUSIONS. In the post–pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era, seasonal increases in respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus, and human metapneumovirus infections in children were associated with increased pediatric admissions with invasive pneumococcal disease, especially pneumonia caused by nonvaccine serotypes.
146 citations
••
Johns Hopkins University1, Leipzig University2, Humanitas University3, Korea University4, Yale University5, West Virginia University6, University of Barcelona7, St George's, University of London8, Indiana University9, National Yang-Ming University10, Cleveland Clinic11, Aarhus University12, University at Buffalo13, Imperial College London14, Primary Children's Hospital15, Erasmus University Rotterdam16, Yeshiva University17, Ghent University18, Baylor University19, Virginia Commonwealth University20, Harvard University21, Federal University of São Paulo22, University of California, San Francisco23, Beaumont Hospital24, Boston University25, University of Oklahoma26, University of Michigan27, Carlos III Health Institute28, University of Melbourne29, Saint Louis University30, Université de Montréal31, University of Pennsylvania32, McGill University33, University of Duisburg-Essen34, Mayo Clinic35, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center36, University of Adelaide37, Royal Adelaide Hospital38, University of Milan39, University of Toronto40, Loyola University Chicago41, Jikei University School of Medicine42
TL;DR: The 2017 Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Atrial Fibrillation (CA-ABlation) as mentioned in this paper provides a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies.
Abstract: During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure.
In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms, outcomes, and treatment of AF. For this reason, the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and update this Consensus Statement. Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF, as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation, this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS, EHRA, ECAS, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [SOLAECE]). The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies. The writing group is charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation procedures. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes, including definitions relevant to this topic.
The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations: HRS, EHRA, ECAS, APHRS, SOLAECE, STS, ACC, American Heart Association (AHA), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias (Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [SOBRAC]). All the members of the writing group, as well as peer reviewers of the document, have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. All author and peer reviewer disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.
In writing a consensus document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members. Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation. These recommendations were systematically balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80% of these members. The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period. Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially reviewed, commented on, edited, and endorsed the final document and recommendations.
The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state, however, that this document is not a guideline. The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF, as well as recommendations for procedure performance, are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence (LOE) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements. A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks, and that AF ablation should be performed; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks, and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks, and that AF ablation may be considered; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended.
The writing group reviewed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high-quality evidence from more than one randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses of high-quality randomized clinical trials, or one or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high-quality registry studies. The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate-quality evidence from one or more randomized clinical trials, or meta-analyses of moderate-quality randomized clinical trials. Level B-NR was used to denote moderate-quality evidence from one or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studies, or registry studies. This designation was also used to denote moderate-quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies. Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution, meta-analyses of such studies, or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects. Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group.
Despite a large number of authors, the participation of several societies and professional organizations, and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately, this document is not intended as a guideline. Rather, the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF, and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF. Rather, the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient.
The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF. A second major objective is to provide recommendations for designing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly. As this document was being prepared, further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way.
145 citations
••
TL;DR: IFRT produced a statistically significant improvement in EFS but no improvement in OS with a median follow-up of 7.7 years, and the relative risks of relapse versus late effects of IFRT must be considered.
Abstract: Purpose In 1995, the Children's Cancer Group (CCG) opened a trial for patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma evaluating whether low-dose involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT) improved event-free survival (EFS) for patients achieving a complete response after chemotherapy. We present the long-term study outcome using final data through March 2007. Patients and Methods Between January 1995 and December 1998, 826 eligible patients were enrolled onto CCG 5942. Four hundred ninety-eight patients achieving an initial complete response to chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive IFRT or no further therapy. EFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the date of study entry or random assignment, as appropriate. Results Ten-year EFS and OS rates for the entire cohort were 83.5% and 92.5%, respectively. In an as-treated analysis for randomly assigned patients, the 10-year EFS and OS rates were 91.2% and 97.1%, respectively, for IFRT and 82.9% and 95.9%, respectively, for no further therapy. For EFS and OS co...
145 citations
••
TL;DR: The majority of results of high quality studies indicate that RUSI has good levels of rater reliability, and improved reliability was observed among studies examining muscle thickness, and when using mean measurement values obtained by more experienced examiners.
Abstract: Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To systematically review the literature on the rater reliability of Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging (RUSI) measurements to assess the morphology of the abdominal and lumbar trunk musculature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: RUSI is an increasingly popular method of evaluating the morphology and function of muscles with real-time ultrasound. Conclusions regarding the reliability of measurements obtained by RUSI, need to be established before recommending its wider use. Methods. A systematic approach to searching and identifying original research articles reporting quantitative RUSI measurements was undertaken. Reliability data were extracted and methodologic quality was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Results. Of the 24 studies included, 6 were deemed to be of high methodologic quality. Among high quality studies, some reported the measurement error associated with performing repeated measurements of the same image (intraimage analysis), whereas others reported the reliability of obtaining and measuring unique RUSI images (interimage analysis). Intraimage measurements demonstrated good intrarater and interrater reliability (ICC: >0.93). Interimage measurements demonstrated good reliability between raters (ICC: >0.90). Interimage, intrarater correlation coefficients were more variable with ICC values ranging from 0.62 to 0.97. Conclusion. The methodologic quality of research investigating the reliability of RUSI to measure the abdominal and lumbar trunk muscles needs to be improved. The majority of results of high quality studies indicate that RUSI has good levels of rater reliability. Improved reliability was observed among studies examining muscle thickness, and when using mean measurement values obtained by more experienced examiners.
145 citations
Authors
Showing all 1777 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Scott Thomas | 131 | 1219 | 85507 |
Michael R. Bristow | 113 | 508 | 60747 |
Ikuo Ueda | 106 | 1053 | 48642 |
David Robinson | 101 | 757 | 38372 |
Pedram Argani | 97 | 372 | 35607 |
Glenn D. Prestwich | 88 | 690 | 42758 |
Melvin M. Scheinman | 86 | 531 | 25883 |
John M. Opitz | 85 | 1193 | 40257 |
George R. Saade | 82 | 872 | 30325 |
James Neil Weinstein | 81 | 325 | 24918 |
Michael Charlton | 79 | 333 | 28494 |
James M. Ford | 79 | 314 | 20750 |
Michael W. Varner | 74 | 405 | 19346 |
Murray D. Mitchell | 74 | 540 | 20408 |
Jeffrey L. Anderson | 73 | 300 | 25916 |