scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Public Health Research Institute

Healthcare
About: Public Health Research Institute is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 4889 authors who have published 8149 publications receiving 276945 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An emphasis is placed on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarc Openia diagnosis, and provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarc openia.
Abstract: Background in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings. Objectives to increase consistency of research design, clinical diagnoses and ultimately, care for people with sarcopenia. Recommendations sarcopenia is a muscle disease (muscle failure) rooted in adverse muscle changes that accrue across a lifetime; sarcopenia is common among adults of older age but can also occur earlier in life. In this updated consensus paper on sarcopenia, EWGSOP2: (1) focuses on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarcopenia diagnosis, and identifies poor physical performance as indicative of severe sarcopenia; (2) updates the clinical algorithm that can be used for sarcopenia case-finding, diagnosis and confirmation, and severity determination and (3) provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarcopenia. Conclusions EWGSOP2's updated recommendations aim to increase awareness of sarcopenia and its risk. With these new recommendations, EWGSOP2 calls for healthcare professionals who treat patients at risk for sarcopenia to take actions that will promote early detection and treatment. We also encourage more research in the field of sarcopenia in order to prevent or delay adverse health outcomes that incur a heavy burden for patients and healthcare systems.

6,250 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Novel nucleic acid probes that recognize and report the presence of specific nucleic acids in homogeneous solutions that undergo a spontaneous conforma-tional change when they hybridize to their targets are developed.
Abstract: We have developed novel nucleic acid probes that recognize and report the presence of specific nucleic acids in homogeneous solutions. These probes undergo a spontaneous fluorogenic conformational change when they hybridize to their targets. Only perfectly complementary targets elicit this response, as hybridization does not occur when the target contains a mismatched nucleotide or a deletion. The probes are particularly suited for monitoring the synthesis of specific nucleic acids in real time. When used in nucleic acid amplification assays, gene detection is homogeneous and sensitive, and can be carried out in a sealed tube. When introduced into living cells, these probes should enable the origin, movement, and fate of specific mRNAs to be traced.

4,584 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A rapid method has been devised which requires only 5 c.mm.

2,921 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This book is dedicated to the memory of those who have served in the armed forces and their families during the conflicts of the twentieth century.

2,628 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Apr 2020-BMJ
TL;DR: Proposed models for covid-19 are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic, according to a review of published and preprint reports.
Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

2,183 citations


Authors

Showing all 4916 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Dorret I. Boomsma1761507136353
Brenda W.J.H. Penninx1701139119082
Michael Snyder169840130225
Lex M. Bouter158767103034
David Eisenberg156697112460
Philip Scheltens1401175107312
Pim Cuijpers13698269370
Gonneke Willemsen12957576976
Britton Chance128111276591
Coen D.A. Stehouwer12297059701
Peter J. Anderson12096663635
Jouke-Jan Hottenga12038963039
Eco J. C. de Geus11952261085
Johannes Brug10962044832
Paul Lips10949150403
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Karolinska Institutet
121.1K papers, 6M citations

93% related

National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

93% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

92% related

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
79.2K papers, 4.7M citations

91% related

French Institute of Health and Medical Research
174.2K papers, 8.3M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202314
202263
20211,564
20201,363
20191,121
2018814