Institution
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Healthcare•Toronto, Ontario, Canada•
About: Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is a healthcare organization based out in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 7689 authors who have published 15236 publications receiving 523019 citations. The organization is also known as: Sunnybrook.
Topics: Population, Medicine, Health care, Breast cancer, Cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
American Cancer Society1, University of Washington2, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Washington Medical Center5, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, University of Pennsylvania8, Northwestern University9, University of Toronto10, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre11, University of Southern California12
TL;DR: There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography.
Abstract: New evidence on breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening has become available since the American Cancer Society (ACS) last issued guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer in 2003. A guideline panel has reviewed this evidence and developed new recommendations for women at different defined levels of risk. Screening MRI is recommended for women with an approximately 20-25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer, including women with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and women who were treated for Hodgkin disease. There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography. Diagnostic uses of MRI were not considered to be within the scope of this review.
2,332 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors systematically searched 15 citation databases for population-level estimates of sepsis incidence rates and fatality in adult populations using consensus criteria and published in the last 36 years.
Abstract: Rationale: Reducing the global burden of sepsis, a recognized global health challenge, requires comprehensive data on the incidence and mortality on a global scale.Objectives: To estimate the worldwide incidence and mortality of sepsis and identify knowledge gaps based on available evidence from observational studies.Methods: We systematically searched 15 international citation databases for population-level estimates of sepsis incidence rates and fatality in adult populations using consensus criteria and published in the last 36 years.Measurements and Main Results: The search yielded 1,553 reports from 1979 to 2015, of which 45 met our criteria. A total of 27 studies from seven high-income countries provided data for metaanalysis. For these countries, the population incidence rate was 288 (95% confidence interval [CI], 215–386; τ = 0.55) for hospital-treated sepsis cases and 148 (95% CI, 98–226; τ = 0.99) for hospital-treated severe sepsis cases per 100,000 person-years. Restricted to the last decade, th...
2,212 citations
••
TL;DR: The Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS™ v2) simplifies and standardizes terminology and content of reports, and provides assessment categories that summarize levels of suspicion or risk of clinically significant prostate cancer that can be used to assist selection of patients for biopsies and management.
2,210 citations
••
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Rhode Island Hospital6, Brown University7, Utrecht University8, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences9, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital10, Peking Union Medical College Hospital11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Humanitas University13, University of Ulsan14, National Institutes of Health15, Imperial College London16, United Arab Emirates University17, Population Health Research Institute18, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust19, Emory University Hospital20, University at Buffalo21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Milano-Bicocca23, King Abdulaziz Medical City24, King Saud Medical City25, The George Institute for Global Health26, Royal North Shore Hospital27, University of Virginia28, University of Washington29
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.
We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
1,762 citations
••
TL;DR: The lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention.
1,739 citations
Authors
Showing all 7765 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |
David A. Bennett | 167 | 1142 | 109844 |
Bruce R. Rosen | 148 | 684 | 97507 |
Robert Tibshirani | 147 | 593 | 326580 |
Steven A. Narod | 134 | 970 | 84638 |
Peter Palese | 132 | 526 | 57882 |
Gideon Koren | 129 | 1994 | 81718 |
John B. Holcomb | 120 | 733 | 53760 |
Julie A. Schneider | 118 | 492 | 56843 |
Patrick Maisonneuve | 118 | 582 | 53363 |
Mitch Dowsett | 114 | 478 | 62453 |
Ian D. Graham | 113 | 700 | 87848 |
Peter C. Austin | 112 | 657 | 60156 |
Sandra E. Black | 104 | 681 | 51755 |
Michael B. Yaffe | 102 | 379 | 41663 |