Institution
Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital
Healthcare•Exeter, United Kingdom•
About: Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Exeter, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 2282 authors who have published 2526 publications receiving 78866 citations. The organization is also known as: RD&E.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Cardiff University1, University of Salford2, Institute of Cancer Research3, University College London4, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust5, Kantonsspital St. Gallen6, University of Bern7, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust8, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre9, University of Glasgow10, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust11, University of Wolverhampton12, Poole Hospital13, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust14, Royal Derby Hospital15, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre16, University of Manchester17, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham18, Queen Alexandra Hospital19, The Queen's Medical Center20, Royal Sussex County Hospital21, Mount Vernon Hospital22, Western General Hospital23, Queen's University Belfast24, Belfast City Hospital25, University of Oxford26, Royal Surrey County Hospital27, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital28, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust29, Telford30, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust31, Musgrove Park Hospital32, Swansea University33, University of Birmingham34
TL;DR: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events.
195 citations
••
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, clinical and experimental evidence is reviewed with respect to implant survival in relation to cement mantle thickness, and the so-called French paradox of excellent survival with thin cement mantles is discussed.
Abstract: In this chapter, clinical and experimental evidence is reviewed with respect to implant survival in relation to cement mantle thickness. The so-called French paradox of excellent survival with thin cement mantles is discussed. Cement mantles perceived as ≫thin≪ may in fact by thicker than expected.
194 citations
••
Family Research Institute1, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory2, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology3, European Institute of Oncology4, University of Turin5, Tel Aviv University6, Sheba Medical Center7, Pomeranian Medical University8, National Institutes of Health9, University of Pennsylvania10, Novartis11, Netherlands Cancer Institute12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, Leiden University14, Radboud University Nijmegen15, Utrecht University16, University of Amsterdam17, VU University Amsterdam18, Maastricht University19, University of Cambridge20, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust21, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust22, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust23, St James's University Hospital24, Princess Anne Hospital25, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust26, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital27, University of Helsinki28, Mayo Clinic29, University of Kansas30, University of Pisa31, University of Gothenburg32, Uppsala University33, Karolinska Institutet34, German Cancer Research Center35, Memorial Hospital of South Bend36, Complutense University of Madrid37, University of Zaragoza38, University of Rostock39, University of Hamburg40, University of Michigan41, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center42, Pompeu Fabra University43, Latvian Biomedical Research and Study centre44, University of Utah45, Cancer Prevention Institute of California46, Harvard University47, University of Melbourne48, Fox Chase Cancer Center49, University of Cologne50, Technische Universität München51, University of Kiel52, University of Ulm53, Charité54, Heidelberg University55, University of Düsseldorf56, University of Paris57, University of Lyon58, University of Franche-Comté59, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute60, New York University61
TL;DR: Cell biological analysis of the protein product suggests a function in regulating development of the mammary gland and genetic analysis identifies the HMMR gene as a modifier of the breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 gene mutation.
Abstract: Differentiated mammary epithelium shows apicobasal polarity, and loss of tissue organization is an early hallmark of breast carcinogenesis. In BRCA1 mutation carriers, accumulation of stem and progenitor cells in normal breast tissue and increased risk of developing tumors of basal-like type suggest that BRCA1 regulates stem/progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation. However, the function of BRCA1 in this process and its link to carcinogenesis remain unknown. Here we depict a molecular mechanism involving BRCA1 and RHAMM that regulates apicobasal polarity and, when perturbed, may increase risk of breast cancer. Starting from complementary genetic analyses across families and populations, we identified common genetic variation at the low-penetrance susceptibility HMMR locus (encoding for RHAMM) that modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but probably not BRCA2, mutation carriers: n = 7,584, weighted hazard ratio ((w)HR) = 1.09 (95% CI 1.02-1.16), p(trend) = 0.017; and n = 3,965, (w)HR = 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.16), p(trend) = 0.43; respectively. Subsequently, studies of MCF10A apicobasal polarization revealed a central role for BRCA1 and RHAMM, together with AURKA and TPX2, in essential reorganization of microtubules. Mechanistically, reorganization is facilitated by BRCA1 and impaired by AURKA, which is regulated by negative feedback involving RHAMM and TPX2. Taken together, our data provide fundamental insight into apicobasal polarization through BRCA1 function, which may explain the expanded cell subsets and characteristic tumor type accompanying BRCA1 mutation, while also linking this process to sporadic breast cancer through perturbation of HMMR/RHAMM.
190 citations
••
TL;DR: It is argued that action researchers and participants working in their own organizations should be clear about the extent to which they are engaged in a political activity, and that AR does not offer the same ethical guarantees concerning confidentiality and anonymity, informed consent, and protection from harm as other research methodologies.
Abstract: Aim. This paper contributes to an understanding of the political and ethical aspects of action research (AR).
Background. Action research is growing in popularity in nursing and health care as a means of changing practice and generating new knowledge. As a methodology, AR relies on a close collaborative working relationship between researcher and participants, but this close relationship is also the source of political and ethical problems faced by researchers and participants.
Content. We argue that action researchers and participants working in their own organizations should be clear about the extent to which they are engaged in a political activity, and that AR does not offer the same ethical guarantees concerning confidentiality and anonymity, informed consent, and protection from harm as other research methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative). This argument is illustrated by our experiences of participation in an AR study.
Conclusion. We outline three areas where AR is implicitly political, and three areas where it is ethically problematic. We recommend that researchers and participants recognize, discuss and negotiate these problematic areas before starting their work.
189 citations
••
TL;DR: In elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (median age, 73 years), CTDa produced higher response rates than MP but was not associated with improved survival outcomes, which highlights the importance of cytogenetic profiling at diagnosis and effective management of adverse events.
187 citations
Authors
Showing all 2288 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Andrew T. Hattersley | 146 | 768 | 106949 |
Timothy M. Frayling | 133 | 500 | 100344 |
Gordon D.O. Lowe | 105 | 560 | 44327 |
Rod S Taylor | 104 | 524 | 39332 |
Sian Ellard | 97 | 636 | 36847 |
Zoltán Kutalik | 90 | 321 | 42901 |
Michael N. Weedon | 87 | 201 | 60701 |
Masud Husain | 81 | 398 | 25682 |
David Melzer | 80 | 328 | 33458 |
Jonathan Mill | 78 | 301 | 36343 |
A. John Camm | 76 | 368 | 49804 |
David Silver | 74 | 227 | 81103 |
Jason D. Warren | 73 | 384 | 20588 |
Nicholas J. Talbot | 71 | 240 | 29205 |
Andrew R. Wood | 70 | 214 | 36203 |