Institution
St Thomas' Hospital
Healthcare•London, United Kingdom•
About: St Thomas' Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Pregnancy. The organization has 12105 authors who have published 15596 publications receiving 624309 citations. The organization is also known as: St Thomas's Hospital & St. Thomas's.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Brigham and Women's Hospital30, University of Ulsan31, University of Manitoba32, Makerere University33, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto34, National Institutes of Health35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital43, University of Pennsylvania44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as mentioned in this paper, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
664 citations
••
Université de Sherbrooke1, World Health Organization2, McMaster University3, University of Indonesia4, Geneva College5, University of California, San Francisco6, Peking Union Medical College Hospital7, Royal Melbourne Hospital8, Ziauddin University9, St Thomas' Hospital10, All India Institute of Medical Sciences11, Aga Khan University12, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust13, St. George's University14, University of Colombo15, University of São Paulo16, Charité17, Ghent University18, Andrés Bello National University19, King's College London20, Hanoi Medical University21, Stellenbosch University22, University of Oxford23, Lanzhou University24, University of Liverpool25
TL;DR: A standing international panel of content experts, patients, clinicians, and methodologists, free from relevant conflicts of interest, produce recommendations for clinical practice, containing a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic cortiosteroids for non-severe patients.
Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
660 citations
••
TL;DR: The results suggest that JAK2 V617F-positive essential thrombocythaemia and polycythaemia vera form a biological continuum, with the degree of erythrocytosis determined by physiological or genetic modifiers.
655 citations
••
TL;DR: There was an association between acute kidney injury and hospital outcome, but associated organ failure, nonsurgical admission, and admission after emergency surgery had a greater impact on prognosis than severity of acute kidneys injury.
Abstract: Objectives:To apply the RIFLE criteria “risk,” “injury,” and “failure” for severity of acute kidney injury to patients admitted to the intensive care unit and to evaluate the significance of other prognostic factors.Design:Retrospective analysis of the Riyadh Intensive Care Program database.Setting:
646 citations
••
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that reperfusion after a period of ischemia results in a sudden increase in the production of free radicals in the myocardium, and ESR signals obtained are consistent with the spin-trapping by PBN of either a carbon-centered species or an alkoxyl radical, both of which could be formed by secondary reactions of initially-formed oxygen radicals with membrane lipid components.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to use a direct method, that of electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy, to demonstrate that reperfusion after a period of ischemia results in a sudden increase in the production of free radicals in the myocardium. The isolated buffer-perfused rat heart was used with N-tert-butyl-alpha-phenylnitrone (PBN) as a spin-trapping agent. Samples of coronary effluent were taken and extracted into toluene for detection of radical adducts by ESR spectroscopy. After 15 minutes of total, global ischemia, aerobic reperfusion resulted in a sudden burst of radical formation that peaked at 4 minutes. When hearts were reperfused with anoxic buffer, no dramatic increase in radical production was observed. Subsequent reintroduction of oxygen, however, resulted in an immediate burst of radical production of a similar magnitude to that seen in the wholly aerobic reperfusion experiments. The ESR signals obtained (aN = 13.60 G, aH = 1.56 G) are consistent with the spin-trapping by PBN of either a carbon-centered species or an alkoxyl radical, both of which could be formed by secondary reactions of initially-formed oxygen radicals with membrane lipid components.
642 citations
Authors
Showing all 12132 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
Rory Collins | 162 | 489 | 193407 |
Steven Williams | 144 | 1375 | 86712 |
Geoffrey Burnstock | 141 | 1488 | 99525 |
Nick C. Fox | 139 | 748 | 93036 |
Christopher D.M. Fletcher | 138 | 674 | 82484 |
David A. Jackson | 136 | 1095 | 68352 |
Paul Harrison | 133 | 1400 | 80539 |
Roberto Ferrari | 133 | 1654 | 103824 |
David Taylor | 131 | 2469 | 93220 |
Keith Hawton | 125 | 657 | 55138 |
Nicole Soranzo | 124 | 316 | 74494 |
Roger Williams | 122 | 1455 | 72416 |
John C. Chambers | 122 | 645 | 71028 |
Derek M. Yellon | 122 | 638 | 54319 |