Institution
Tulane University
Education•New Orleans, Louisiana, United States•
About: Tulane University is a education organization based out in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Blood pressure. The organization has 24478 authors who have published 47205 publications receiving 1944993 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Louisiana.
Topics: Population, Blood pressure, Poison control, Receptor, Angiotensin II
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The synthetic growth-hormone-release inhibitory hormone inhibits G.R.R.-I.H. response to insulin-induced hypoglycaemia without affecting the prolactin or corticosteroid responses, but the effects are short-lived.
269 citations
••
TL;DR: It is suggested that the presence of general risk factors may lead to a variety of negative behavioral outcomes, including the perpetration of child sexual offending, as well as other negative behaviors.
269 citations
••
TL;DR: The findings provide a better understanding of the mechanism(s) involved in stem cell aging and regenerative potential, and this in turn may affect tissue repair that declines with aging.
269 citations
••
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio1, Georgia Regents University2, Vancouver Island Health Authority3, University of Rennes4, University of Lorraine5, University of California, Davis6, Monash University7, Tulane University8, Uppsala University9, University of Gothenburg10, Merck & Co.11
TL;DR: The C-WORTHY trial as mentioned in this paper was a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial of grazoprevir plus elbasvir with or without ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection with baseline characteristics of poor response.
269 citations
••
TL;DR: A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes.
Abstract: Importance Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported. Objective To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life. Design, setting, and participants Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers. Interventions Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training. Main outcomes and measures The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life. Results Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusions and relevance A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.
268 citations
Authors
Showing all 24722 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Walter C. Willett | 334 | 2399 | 413322 |
JoAnn E. Manson | 270 | 1819 | 258509 |
Frank B. Hu | 250 | 1675 | 253464 |
Eric B. Rimm | 196 | 988 | 147119 |
Krzysztof Matyjaszewski | 169 | 1431 | 128585 |
Nicholas J. White | 161 | 1352 | 104539 |
Tien Yin Wong | 160 | 1880 | 131830 |
Tomas Hökfelt | 158 | 1033 | 95979 |
Thomas E. Starzl | 150 | 1625 | 91704 |
Geoffrey Burnstock | 141 | 1488 | 99525 |
Joseph Sodroski | 138 | 542 | 77070 |
Glenn M. Chertow | 128 | 764 | 82401 |
Darwin J. Prockop | 128 | 576 | 87066 |
Kenneth J. Pienta | 127 | 671 | 64531 |
Charles Taylor | 126 | 741 | 77626 |