Institution
Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
Education•Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain•
About: Universidad Francisco de Vitoria is a education organization based out in Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Population. The organization has 939 authors who have published 1508 publications receiving 13345 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
••
Hammersmith Hospital1, University College London2, Imperial College London3, Cancer Research UK4, Royal North Shore Hospital5, Flinders University6, Monash University7, Ain Shams University8, French Institute of Health and Medical Research9, Charité10, University of Oldenburg11, Magna Græcia University12, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart13, University of Verona14, Tokyo Medical University15, Aichi Medical University16, King Abdulaziz Medical City17, Seoul National University Hospital18, Keimyung University19, University of Ulsan20, Inje University21, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria22, University of Amsterdam23, VU University Amsterdam24, Istanbul University25, University of Florence26, Conquest Hospital27, University of Exeter28, Anglia Ruskin University29, Emory University30, United States Department of Veterans Affairs31, University of Washington32, Stony Brook University33, Canterbury Christ Church University34, Duke University35, Hospital Clínico San Carlos36, Complutense University of Madrid37
TL;DR: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularizations guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year.
Abstract: BackgroundCoronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. MethodsWe randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. ResultsAt 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference i...
672 citations
••
TL;DR: Clinical validation or implementation studies of maternal blood cell‐free DNA analysis and the performance of screening for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) are reviewed.
Abstract: To review clinical validation or implementation studies of maternal blood cell‐free (cf) DNA analysis and define the performance of screening for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA).
446 citations
••
TL;DR: To evaluate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcome by performing a systematic review of available published literature on pregnancies affected by CO VID‐19.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcome by performing a systematic review of available published literature on pregnancies affected by COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on pregnancy, perinatal and neonatal outcome. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database and Wan Fang Data up to and including 20 April 2020 (studies were identified through PubMed alert after that date). For the search strategy, combinations of the following keywords and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms were used: 'SARS-CoV-2', 'COVID-19', 'coronavirus disease 2019', 'pregnancy', 'gestation', 'maternal', 'mother', 'vertical transmission', 'maternal-fetal transmission', 'intrauterine transmission', 'neonate', 'infant' and 'delivery'. Eligibility criteria included laboratory-confirmed and/or clinically diagnosed COVID-19, patient being pregnant on admission and availability of clinical characteristics, including at least one maternal, perinatal or neonatal outcome. Exclusion criteria were non-peer-reviewed or unpublished reports, unspecified date and location of the study, suspicion of duplicate reporting and unreported maternal or perinatal outcomes. No language restrictions were applied. RESULTS: We identified a high number of relevant case reports and case series, but only 24 studies, including a total of 324 pregnant women with COVID-19, met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. These comprised nine case series (eight consecutive) and 15 case reports. A total of 20 pregnant patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included in the case reports. In the combined data from the eight consecutive case series, including 211 (71.5%) cases of laboratory-confirmed and 84 (28.5%) of clinically diagnosed COVID-19, the maternal age ranged from 20 to 44 years and the gestational age on admission ranged from 5 to 41 weeks. The most common symptoms at presentation were fever, cough, dyspnea/shortness of breath, fatigue and myalgia. The rate of severe pneumonia reported amongst the case series ranged from 0% to 14%, with the majority of the cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Almost all cases from the case series had positive computed tomography chest findings. All six and 22 cases that had nucleic-acid testing in vaginal mucus and breast milk samples, respectively, were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Only four cases of spontaneous miscarriage or termination were reported. In the consecutive case series, 219/295 women had delivered at the time of reporting and 78% of them had Cesarean section. The gestational age at delivery ranged from 28 to 41 weeks. Apgar scores at both 1 and 5 min ranged from 7 to 10. Only eight neonates had birth weight < 2500 g and nearly one-third of neonates were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit. There was one case of neonatal asphyxia and death. In 155 neonates that had nucleic-acid testing in throat swab, all, except three cases, were negative for SARS-CoV-2. There were no cases of maternal death in the eight consecutive case series. Seven maternal deaths, four intrauterine fetal deaths (one with twin pregnancy) and two neonatal deaths (twin pregnancy) were reported in a non-consecutive case series of nine cases with severe COVID-19. In the case reports, two maternal deaths, one neonatal death and two cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing number of published studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy, there are insufficient good-quality data to draw unbiased conclusions with regard to the severity of the disease or specific complications of COVID-19 in pregnant women, as well as vertical transmission, perinatal and neonatal complications. In order to answer specific questions in relation to the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and their fetuses, through meaningful good-quality research, we urge researchers and investigators to present complete outcome data and reference previously published cases in their publications, and to record such reporting when the data of a case are entered into one or several registries. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
390 citations
••
University of Florence1, University of California, Los Angeles2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria4, Autonomous University of Madrid5, University of Michigan6, Harvard University7, Stanford University8, University of Pennsylvania9, University of Silesia in Katowice10, Aarhus University11, Primary Children's Hospital12, United States Department of Veterans Affairs13, Mayo Clinic14, Duke University15, Yale University16, Aarhus University Hospital17, University of California, San Francisco18, Brigham and Women's Hospital19
TL;DR: Treatment with mavacamten improved exercise capacity, LVOT obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and highlights the benefits of disease-specific treatment for this condition.
353 citations
Authors
Showing all 954 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
José Luis Zamorano | 105 | 695 | 133396 |
Javier Zamora | 64 | 260 | 13814 |
De-Yi Wang | 58 | 269 | 9799 |
Julián Romero | 48 | 78 | 7045 |
Ruth E. Cameron | 47 | 218 | 7477 |
Miguel Quintanilla | 45 | 128 | 8085 |
Luis A. Gil-Alana | 45 | 647 | 9074 |
Fernando Berrendero | 43 | 73 | 5862 |
Andrew Miles | 43 | 178 | 6640 |
Paulino Gómez-Puertas | 41 | 122 | 4799 |
Pablo García-Pavía | 39 | 221 | 4952 |
Carlos Zaragoza | 30 | 74 | 2784 |
César Venero | 30 | 63 | 3476 |
Ernesto Panadero | 30 | 78 | 3748 |
Francisco López-Muñoz | 29 | 293 | 3808 |