scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Alabama at Birmingham

EducationBirmingham, Alabama, United States
About: University of Alabama at Birmingham is a education organization based out in Birmingham, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 38523 authors who have published 86775 publications receiving 3930642 citations. The organization is also known as: UAB & The University of Alabama at Birmingham.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Christina Fitzmaurice1, Christina Fitzmaurice2, Daniel Dicker2, Daniel Dicker1, Amanda W Pain1, Hannah Hamavid1, Maziar Moradi-Lakeh1, Michael F. MacIntyre1, Michael F. MacIntyre3, Christine Allen1, Gillian M. Hansen1, Rachel Woodbrook1, Charles D.A. Wolfe1, Randah R. Hamadeh4, Ami R. Moore5, A. Werdecker6, Bradford D. Gessner, Braden Te Ao, Brian J. McMahon7, Chante Karimkhani8, Chuanhua Yu9, Graham S Cooke10, David C. Schwebel11, David O. Carpenter12, David M. Pereira13, Denis Nash, Dhruv S. Kazi14, Diego De Leo15, Dietrich Plass16, Kingsley N. Ukwaja17, George D. Thurston, Kim Yun Jin18, Edgar P. Simard19, Edward J Mills20, Eun-Kee Park21, Ferrán Catalá-López22, Gabrielle deVeber, Carolyn C. Gotay23, Gulfaraz Khan24, H. Dean Hosgood25, Itamar S. Santos26, Janet L Leasher27, Jasvinder A. Singh28, James Leigh12, Jost B. Jonas29, Juan R. Sanabria30, Justin Beardsley31, Justin Beardsley32, Kathryn H. Jacobsen33, Ken Takahashi34, Richard C. Franklin, Luca Ronfani35, Marcella Montico36, Luigi Naldi36, Marcello Tonelli, Johanna M. Geleijnse37, Max Petzold38, Mark G. Shrime39, Mark G. Shrime40, Mustafa Z. Younis41, Naohiro Yonemoto42, Nicholas J K Breitborde, Paul S. F. Yip43, Farshad Pourmalek44, Paulo A. Lotufo24, Alireza Esteghamati27, Graeme J. Hankey45, Raghib Ali46, Raimundas Lunevicius33, Reza Malekzadeh47, Robert P. Dellavalle45, Robert G. Weintraub48, Robert G. Weintraub49, Robyn M. Lucas50, Robyn M. Lucas51, Roderick J Hay52, David Rojas-Rueda, Ronny Westerman, Sadaf G. Sepanlou53, Sandra Nolte, Scott B. Patten54, Scott Weichenthal37, Semaw Ferede Abera55, Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad56, Ivy Shiue57, Tim Driscoll58, Tim Driscoll59, Tommi J. Vasankari29, Ubai Alsharif, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar54, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov45, W. S. Marcenes60, Wubegzier Mekonnen61, Yohannes Adama Melaku62, Yuichiro Yano56, Al Artaman63, Ismael Campos, Jennifer H MacLachlan41, Ulrich O Mueller, Daniel Kim53, Matias Trillini64, Babak Eshrati65, Hywel C Williams66, Kenji Shibuya67, Rakhi Dandona68, Kinnari S. Murthy69, Benjamin C Cowie69, Azmeraw T. Amare, Carl Abelardo T. Antonio70, Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela71, Coen H. Van Gool, Francesco Saverio Violante, In-Hwan Oh72, Kedede Deribe73, Kjetil Søreide62, Kjetil Søreide74, Luke D. Knibbs75, Luke D. Knibbs76, Maia Kereselidze77, Mark Green78, Rosario Cardenas79, Nobhojit Roy80, Taavi Tillmann57, Yongmei Li81, Hans Krueger82, Lorenzo Monasta24, Subhojit Dey36, Sara Sheikhbahaei, Nima Hafezi-Nejad45, G Anil Kumar45, Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy69, Lalit Dandona83, Haidong Wang1, Haidong Wang69, Stein Emil Vollset1, Ali Mokdad84, Ali Mokdad75, Joshua A. Salomon1, Rafael Lozano41, Theo Vos1, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Alan D. Lopez1, Christopher J L Murray50, Mohsen Naghavi1 
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, University of Washington2, Iran University of Medical Sciences3, King's College London4, Arabian Gulf University5, University of North Texas6, Auckland University of Technology7, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium8, Columbia University9, Wuhan University10, Imperial College London11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University at Albany, SUNY13, City University of New York14, University of California, San Francisco15, Griffith University16, Environment Agency17, New York University18, Southern University College19, Emory University20, University of Ottawa21, Kosin University22, University of Toronto23, University of British Columbia24, United Arab Emirates University25, Albert Einstein College of Medicine26, University of São Paulo27, Nova Southeastern University28, University of Sydney29, Heidelberg University30, Cancer Treatment Centers of America31, Case Western Reserve University32, University of Oxford33, George Mason University34, James Cook University35, University of Trieste36, University of Calgary37, Wageningen University and Research Centre38, University of the Witwatersrand39, University of Gothenburg40, Harvard University41, Jackson State University42, University of Arizona43, University of Hong Kong44, Tehran University of Medical Sciences45, University of Western Australia46, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust47, Veterans Health Administration48, University of Colorado Denver49, University of Melbourne50, Royal Children's Hospital51, Australian National University52, University of Marburg53, Charité54, Health Canada55, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain56, Karolinska Institutet57, University of Edinburgh58, Northumbria University59, National Research University – Higher School of Economics60, Queen Mary University of London61, Addis Ababa University62, Northwestern University63, Northeastern University64, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research65, Arak University of Medical Sciences66, University of Nottingham67, University of Tokyo68, Public Health Foundation of India69, University of Groningen70, University of the Philippines Manila71, University of Bologna72, Kyung Hee University73, Brighton and Sussex Medical School74, University of Bergen75, Stavanger University Hospital76, University of Queensland77, National Centre for Disease Control78, University of Sheffield79, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana80, University College London81, Genentech82, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman83, Norwegian Institute of Public Health84
TL;DR: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013, the general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study was used.
Abstract: Importance Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. Objective To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. Evidence Review The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. Findings In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. Conclusions and Relevance Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.

2,375 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

2,367 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Aug 2008-JAMA
TL;DR: This report provides guidelines for when to initiate antiretroviral therapy, selection of appropriate initial regimens, patient monitoring, when to change therapy, and what regimens to use when changing.
Abstract: Context New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last 2 years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected adults in resource-rich settings. Objective To provide current recommendations for the treatment of adult HIV infection with ART and use of laboratory-monitoring tools. Guidelines include when to start therapy and with what drugs, monitoring for response and toxic effects, special considerations in therapy, and managing antiretroviral failure. Data Sources, Study Selection, and Data Extraction Data that had been published or presented in abstract form at scientific conferences in the past 2 years were systematically searched and reviewed by an International Antiviral Society–USA panel. The panel reviewed available evidence and formed recommendations by full panel consensus. Data Synthesis Treatment is recommended for all adults with HIV infection; the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence increase with decreasing CD4 cell count and the presence of certain concurrent conditions. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Alternatives in each class are recommended for patients with or at risk of certain concurrent conditions. CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level should be monitored, as should engagement in care, ART adherence, HIV drug resistance, and quality-of-care indicators. Reasons for regimen switching include virologic, immunologic, or clinical failure and drug toxicity or intolerance. Confirmed treatment failure should be addressed promptly and multiple factors considered. Conclusion New recommendations for HIV patient care include offering ART to all patients regardless of CD4 cell count, changes in therapeutic options, and modifications in the timing and choice of ART in the setting of opportunistic illnesses such as cryptococcal disease and tuberculosis.

2,357 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preterm delivery is the chief problem in obstetrics today, accounting for 70 percent of perinatal mortality and nearly half of long-term neurologic morbidity, and the remainder follow the spontaneous onset of labor or rupture.
Abstract: Preterm delivery is the chief problem in obstetrics today, accounting for 70 percent of perinatal mortality and nearly half of long-term neurologic morbidity.1,2 Approximately 10 percent of all births are preterm, but most of the serious illness and death is concentrated in the 1 to 2 percent of infants who are born at less than 32 weeks of gestation and who weigh less than 1500 g. Approximately 20 percent of preterm births are the result of a physician's decision to bring about delivery for maternal or fetal indications, and the remainder follow the spontaneous onset of labor or rupture . . .

2,331 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes are presented.
Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

2,310 citations


Authors

Showing all 38940 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Rudolf Jaenisch206606178436
Joel Schwartz1831149109985
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Gregg L. Semenza168502130316
David R. Jacobs1651262113892
Hua Zhang1631503116769
David R. Holmes1611624114187
David Cella1561258106402
Elaine S. Jaffe156828112412
Michael A. Matthay15199898687
Lawrence Corey14677378105
Barton F. Haynes14491179014
Douglas D. Richman14263382806
Kjell Fuxe142147989846
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

98% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

97% related

Brigham and Women's Hospital
110.5K papers, 6.8M citations

97% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023168
2022530
20215,327
20205,028
20194,402
20184,083