Institution
St. Michael's Hospital
Healthcare•Toronto, Ontario, Canada•
About: St. Michael's Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 6204 authors who have published 10459 publications receiving 364432 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Toronto1, St. Michael's Hospital2, Northeastern University3, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute4, University of South Australia5, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada6, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health7, RAND Corporation8, American University of Beirut9, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality10, University of Ottawa11, University of York12, University of Alberta13, McMaster University14, South African Medical Research Council15, Queen's University16, Dalhousie University17, World Health Organization18, Cochrane Collaboration19, King's College London20
TL;DR: A PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was needed to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis and was developed according to published guidance by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research) Network for the development of reporting guidelines.
Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
11,709 citations
••
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
••
University College London1, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia2, VU University Medical Center3, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital4, National Multiple Sclerosis Society5, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University6, Medical University of Graz7, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute8, Fukushima Medical University9, New York University10, University of Düsseldorf11, University of Basel12, Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis13, University of Manitoba14, St. Michael's Hospital15, Hebron University16, Johns Hopkins University17, University of Copenhagen18, University of British Columbia19, University of Bari20, Claude Bernard University Lyon 121, French Institute of Health and Medical Research22, University of California, San Francisco23, Mayo Clinic24, Salisbury University25, Cleveland Clinic26
TL;DR: The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation.
Abstract: The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.
3,945 citations
••
Cooper University Hospital1, Rhode Island Hospital2, University of Birmingham3, Stony Brook University4, McMaster University5, University of Jena6, University of Pittsburgh7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University Hospital of Lausanne9, University of Minnesota10, St. Michael's Hospital11, University of Turin12, University of Hertfordshire13, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine14, Harvard University15, NorthShore University HealthSystem16, Houston Methodist Hospital17
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, published in 2004.
Abstract: Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.
3,928 citations
••
University of Milan1, St. Michael's GAA, Sligo2, University of Toronto3, Paris Diderot University4, University of Paris5, University Health Network6, St. Michael's Hospital7, Australian National University8, Uppsala University9, Queen's University Belfast10, Sapienza University of Rome11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Harvard University13, Leipzig University14
TL;DR: Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning, which indicates the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.
Abstract: IMPORTANCE Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES To evaluate intensive ...
3,259 citations
Authors
Showing all 6253 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Salim Yusuf | 231 | 1439 | 252912 |
Gregory Y.H. Lip | 169 | 3159 | 171742 |
Gang Chen | 167 | 3372 | 149819 |
Jean Louis Vincent | 161 | 1667 | 163721 |
Daniel J. Rader | 155 | 1026 | 107408 |
Bruce R. Rosen | 148 | 684 | 97507 |
Dafna D. Gladman | 129 | 1036 | 75273 |
Stuart J. Connolly | 125 | 610 | 75925 |
Peter Jüni | 121 | 593 | 99254 |
Sharon E. Straus | 120 | 879 | 72513 |
Bernd W. Scheithauer | 119 | 729 | 55985 |
Daniel Pauly | 119 | 650 | 69535 |
Sergio Grinstein | 118 | 533 | 51452 |
Arthur S. Slutsky | 117 | 610 | 73092 |
Michael G. Fehlings | 116 | 1189 | 57003 |