Institution
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Healthcare•Birmingham, United Kingdom•
About: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust is a healthcare organization based out in Birmingham, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 3484 authors who have published 4200 publications receiving 95690 citations.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Randomized controlled trial, Liver transplantation, Cohort study
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Oxford1, Federal University of São Paulo2, University of the Witwatersrand3, Stellenbosch University4, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine5, University of Sheffield6, University of London7, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust8, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust9, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust12, St George's, University of London13, AstraZeneca14, North Bristol NHS Trust15, University College Hospital16, University of Hull17, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública18, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte19, Northwest University (China)20, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria21, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul24, Western General Hospital25, University of Glasgow26, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust27, University of Cambridge28, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust29, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board30
TL;DR: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
3,741 citations
••
University of Sydney1, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust2, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust3, Spanish National Research Council4, University of Haifa5, The Chinese University of Hong Kong6, University of Bern7, University of Mainz8, Kurume University9, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile10, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico11, Mansoura University12, Minerva Foundation Institute for Medical Research13, Shanghai Jiao Tong University14, Aarhus University Hospital15, Marmara University16, University of Lisbon17, University of São Paulo18, Paris Diderot University19, University of Western Australia20, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University21, Minia University22, University of Malaya23, National Autonomous University of Mexico24, Yonsei University25, University of Paris26, University of Turin27
TL;DR: A panel of international experts from 22 countries propose a new definition of metabolic-dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease that is both comprehensive yet simple for the diagnosis of MAFLD and is independent of other liver diseases.
1,705 citations
••
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust1, University of Warwick2, University of Salford3, Cardiff University4, Institute of Cancer Research5, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre6, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust7, Weston Park Hospital8, Maidstone Hospital9, Royal Bournemouth Hospital10, Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust11, Guy's Hospital12, Cheltenham General Hospital13, Queen Alexandra Hospital14, The Queen's Medical Center15, Musgrove Park Hospital16, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust17, Mount Vernon Hospital18, Royal Surrey County Hospital19, East Sussex County Council20, Western General Hospital21, Queen's University Belfast22, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust23, Churchill Hospital24, Telford25, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital26, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust27, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust28, Swansea University29
TL;DR: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population of men, and heterogeneity in treatment effect across prespecified subsets was not found.
1,502 citations
••
TL;DR: An International Consensus Conference was held in April 2005 to provide recommendations regarding the management of this process and an 11-member international jury answered five pre-defined questions.
Abstract: Weaning covers the entire process of liberating the patient from mechanical support and from the endotracheal tube. Many controversial questions remain concerning the best methods for conducting this process. An International Consensus Conference was held in April 2005 to provide recommendations regarding the management of this process. An 11-member international jury answered five pre-defined questions. 1) What is known about the epidemiology of weaning problems? 2) What is the pathophysiology of weaning failure? 3) What is the usual process of initial weaning from the ventilator? 4) Is there a role for different ventilator modes in more difficult weaning? 5) How should patients with prolonged weaning failure be managed? The main recommendations were as follows. 1) Patients should be categorised into three groups based on the difficulty and duration of the weaning process. 2) Weaning should be considered as early as possible. 3) A spontaneous breathing trial is the major diagnostic test to determine whether patients can be successfully extubated. 4) The initial trial should last 30 min and consist of either T-tube breathing or low levels of pressure support. 5) Pressure support or assist-control ventilation modes should be favoured in patients failing an initial trial/trials. 6) Noninvasive ventilation techniques should be considered in selected patients to shorten the duration of intubation but should not be routinely used as a tool for extubation failure.
1,265 citations
••
University of Liverpool1, University of Birmingham2, University of Verona3, National Health Service4, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre5, University of Toronto6, Lille University of Science and Technology7, Heidelberg University8, University of Hamburg9, Technische Universität München10, University of Greifswald11, Semmelweis University12, Kyoto University13, Karolinska Institutet14, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust15, Glasgow Royal Infirmary16
TL;DR: Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer.
Abstract: Context Adjuvant fluorouracil has been shown to be of benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is known to be the most effective agent in advanced disease as well as an effective agent in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Objective To determine whether fluorouracil or gemcitabine is superior in terms of overall survival as adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. Design, Setting, and Patients The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial conducted in 159 pancreatic cancer centers in Europe, Australasia, Japan, and Canada. Included in ESPAC-3 version 2 were 1088 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone cancer resection; patients were randomized between July 2000 and January 2007 and underwent at least 2 years of follow-up. Interventions Patients received either fluorouracil plus folinic acid (folinic acid, 20 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus injection, followed by fluorouracil, 425 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus injection given 1-5 days every 28 days) (n=551) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenous infusion once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks) (n=537) for 6 months. Main Outcome Measures Primary outcome measure was overall survival; secondary measures were toxicity, progression-free survival, and quality of life. Results Final analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis after a median of 34.2 (interquartile range, 27.1-43.4) months' follow-up after 753 deaths (69%). Median survival was 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-25.0) months for patients treated with fluorouracil plus folinic acid and 23.6 (95% CI, 21.4-26.4) months for those treated with gemcitabine (chi(2)(1) = 0.7; P = .39; hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Seventy-seven patients (14%) receiving fluorouracil plus folinic acid had 97 treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with 40 patients (7.5%) receiving gemcitabine, who had 52 events (P<.001). There were no significant differences in either progression-free survival or global quality-of-life scores between the treatment groups. Conclusion Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer.
1,203 citations
Authors
Showing all 3509 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David H. Adams | 155 | 1613 | 117783 |
Nick C. Fox | 139 | 748 | 93036 |
Paul Harrison | 133 | 1400 | 80539 |
Martin N. Rossor | 128 | 670 | 95743 |
David A. Isenberg | 119 | 1180 | 68426 |
Jonathan J Deeks | 109 | 381 | 131283 |
Susan Michie | 105 | 715 | 77405 |
John Collinge | 101 | 504 | 53101 |
Paulus Kirchhof | 100 | 558 | 106459 |
Paul M. Stewart | 99 | 440 | 37169 |
Tai Hing Lam | 93 | 1168 | 51646 |
Tamas Revesz | 90 | 374 | 30861 |
Nick Freemantle | 89 | 592 | 40742 |
Christopher D. Buckley | 88 | 440 | 25664 |
David M. A. Mann | 88 | 338 | 43292 |