Institution
Regions Hospital
Healthcare•Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States•
About: Regions Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 1215 authors who have published 1493 publications receiving 70771 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
4,303 citations
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, University of Toronto10, University of Pittsburgh11, St Thomas' Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Rowan University17, University of Mississippi18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Federal University of São Paulo22, Regions Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, University of Ottawa25, University of Sydney26, University of New South Wales27, Fujita Health University28, University of Copenhagen29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Christiana Care Health System31, Stanford University32, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology33, University of Kansas34, Harvard University35, California Pacific Medical Center36, University of Amsterdam37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Houston Methodist Hospital39
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was assembled at key international meetings (forSurviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 as discussed by the authors ).
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for
2,414 citations
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment1, University of Southern California2, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center3, Dartmouth College4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill6, Regions Hospital7, University of Missouri8, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai9, University of Michigan10, Georgia Regents University11, Arizona State University12, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston13, University of Massachusetts Medical School14, University of California, San Francisco15
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).
1,347 citations
Harvard University1, University of California, Los Angeles2, Stanford University3, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center4, National Institutes of Health5, Georgetown University6, University of Arizona7, University at Buffalo8, Ohio State University9, University of Florida10, Regions Hospital11, Yeshiva University12, University of Pittsburgh13, Brown University14, Case Western Reserve University15, AstraZeneca16, University of Tennessee Health Science Center17, University of Alabama at Birmingham18, George Washington University19, University of Massachusetts Medical School20, University of Miami21, Rush University Medical Center22, Wayne State University23, Northwestern University24, Wake Forest University25, University of Iowa26
TL;DR: Most risks and benefits dissipated postintervention, although some elevation in breast cancer risk persisted during cumulative follow-up and the 2 WHI hormone therapy trials do not support use of this therapy.
Abstract: RESULTS During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). Other risks included increased stroke, pulmonary embolism, dementia (in women aged65 years), gallbladder disease, and urinary incontinence; benefits included decreased hip fractures, diabetes, and vasomotor symptoms. Most risks and benefits dissipated postintervention, although some elevation in breast cancer risk persisted during cumulative follow-up (434 cases for CEE plus MPA vs 323 for placebo; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.11-1.48]). The risks and benefits were more balanced during the CEE alone intervention with 204 CHD cases for CEE alone vs 222 cases for placebo (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.781.14) and 104 vs 135, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02); cumulatively, there were 168 vs 216, respectively, cases of breast cancer diagnosed (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). Results for other outcomes were similar to CEE plus MPA. Neither regimen affected all-cause mortality. For CEE alone, younger women (aged 50-59 years) had more favorable results for all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and the global index (nominal P < .05 for trend by age). Absolute risks of adverse events (measured by the global index) per 10 000 women annually taking CEE plus MPA ranged from 12 excess cases for ages of 50-59 years to 38 for ages of 70-79 years; for women taking CEE alone, from 19 fewer cases for ages of 50-59 years to 51 excess cases for ages of 70-79 years. Quality-of-life outcomes had mixed results in both trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Menopausal hormone therapy has a complex pattern of risks and benefits. Findings from the intervention and extended postintervention follow-up of the 2 WHI hormone therapy trials do not support use of this therapy for chronic disease prevention, although it is appropriate for symptom management in some women.
1,181 citations
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality1, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment2, Arizona State University3, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center4, Dartmouth College5, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center6, Group Health Cooperative7, Regions Hospital8, University of Missouri9, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai10, Georgia Regents University11, Baylor College of Medicine12, University of Massachusetts Medical School13, University of California, San Francisco14, University of Pennsylvania15, University of Minnesota16
1,087 citations
Authors
Showing all 1222 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Story | 135 | 522 | 64623 |
| Daniel G. Anderson | 121 | 520 | 59724 |
| Mohit Bhandari | 106 | 991 | 41837 |
| Karen L. Margolis | 83 | 322 | 41686 |
| Henry H. Balfour | 75 | 317 | 22310 |
| Diana L. Miglioretti | 75 | 305 | 23990 |
| Lisa A. Jackson | 75 | 278 | 20627 |
| Christine Cole Johnson | 68 | 325 | 19159 |
| Vasantha Padmanabhan | 63 | 291 | 13741 |
| Jacob I. Sznajder | 61 | 273 | 12201 |
| John J. Marini | 61 | 309 | 21230 |
| William Thomas | 61 | 163 | 11534 |
| Patrick J. O'Connor | 61 | 288 | 13312 |
| Leif I. Solberg | 59 | 261 | 14571 |
| William H. Frey | 56 | 165 | 12697 |