Institution
University of Alabama
Education•Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States•
About: University of Alabama is a education organization based out in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 27323 authors who have published 48609 publications receiving 1565337 citations. The organization is also known as: Alabama & Bama.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Galaxy, Health care, Large Hadron Collider
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: It is shown that the quality of evidence supporting NMA estimates varies from high to very low across comparisons, and that quality ratings given to a whole network are uninformative and likely to mislead.
Abstract: Network meta-analysis (NMA), combining direct and indirect comparisons, is increasingly being used to examine the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions. Minimal guidance exists on how to rate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effect estimates obtained from NMA. We present a four-step approach to rate the quality of evidence in each of the direct, indirect, and NMA estimates based on methods developed by the GRADE working group. Using an example of a published NMA, we show that the quality of evidence supporting NMA estimates varies from high to very low across comparisons, and that quality ratings given to a whole network are uninformative and likely to mislead.
1,138 citations
••
TL;DR: A systematic review of psychological and behavioral interventions for persistent insomnia was conducted by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) in 1999 as mentioned in this paper, which provided an update of the evidence published since the original paper.
Abstract: Background Recognition that psychological and behavioral factors play an important role in insomnia has led to increased interest in therapies targeting these factors. A review paper published in 1999 summarized the evidence regarding the efficacy of psychological and behavioral treatments for persistent insomnia. The present review provides an update of the evidence published since the original paper. As with the original paper, this review was conducted by a task force commissioned by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in order to update its practice parameters on psychological and behavioral therapies for insomnia. Methods A systematic review was conducted on 37 treatment studies (N = 2246 subjects/patients) published between 1998 and 2004 inclusively and identified through Psyclnfo and Medline searches. Each study was systematically reviewed with a standard coding sheet and the following information was extracted: Study design, sample (number of participants, age, gender), diagnosis, type of treatments and controls, primary and secondary outcome measures, and main findings. Criteria for inclusion of a study were as follows: (a) the main sleep diagnosis was insomnia (primary or comorbid), (b) at least 1 treatment condition was psychological or behavioral in content, (c) the study design was a randomized controlled trial, a nonrandomized group design, a clinical case series or a single subject experimental design with a minimum of 10 subjects, and (d) the study included at least 1 of the following as dependent variables: sleep onset latency, number and/or duration of awakenings, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, or sleep quality. Results Psychological and behavioral therapies produced reliable changes in several sleep parameters of individuals with either primary insomnia or insomnia associated with medical and psychiatric disorders. Nine studies documented the benefits of insomnia treatment in older adults or for facilitating discontinuation of medication among chronic hypnotic users. Sleep improvements achieved with treatment were well sustained over time; however, with the exception of reduced psychological symptoms/ distress, there was limited evidence that improved sleep led to clinically meaningful changes in other indices of morbidity (e.g., daytime fatigue). Five treatments met criteria for empirically-supported psychological treatments for insomnia: Stimulus control therapy, relaxation, paradoxical intention, sleep restriction, and cognitive-behavior therapy. Discussion These updated findings provide additional evidence in support of the original review's conclusions as to the efficacy and generalizability of psychological and behavioral therapies for persistent insomnia. Nonetheless, further research is needed to develop therapies that would optimize outcomes and reduce morbidity, as would studies of treatment mechanisms, mediators, and moderators of outcomes. Effectiveness studies are also needed to validate those therapies when implemented in clinical settings (primary care), by non-sleep specialists. There is also a need to disseminate more effectively the available evidence in support of psychological and behavioral interventions to health-care practitioners working on the front line.
1,135 citations
••
TL;DR: The results suggest that detection of increased oxidation of these probes in endothelial cells is most useful as a marker of a change in general cellular oxidant production.
1,135 citations
••
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
••
Miriam Hospital1, Wake Forest University2, University of Pittsburgh3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of Tennessee Health Science Center5, Baylor College of Medicine6, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention7, Harvard University8, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio9, Anschutz Medical Campus10, National Institutes of Health11, University of Minnesota12, University of Washington13, American Indian Center14, University of Tennessee15, University of Alabama16, University of Pennsylvania17, Mount Sinai St. Luke's and Mount Sinai Roosevelt18, University of Southern California19, Pennington Biomedical Research Center20
TL;DR: Intensive lifestyle intervention can produce sustained weight loss and improvements in fitness, glycemic control, and CVD risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Lifestyle interventions produce short-term improvements in glycemia and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but no long-term data are available. We examined the effects of lifestyle intervention on changes in weight, fitness, and CVD risk factors during a 4-year study. METHODS The Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) and diabetes support and education (DSE; the control group) on the incidence of major CVD events in 5145 overweight or obese individuals (59.5% female; mean age, 58.7 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus. More than 93% of participants provided outcomes data at each annual assessment. RESULTS Averaged across 4 years, ILI participants had a greater percentage of weight loss than DSE participants (-6.15% vs -0.88%; P < .001) and greater improvements in treadmill fitness (12.74% vs 1.96%; P < .001), hemoglobin A(1c) level (-0.36% vs -0.09%; P < .001), systolic (-5.33 vs -2.97 mm Hg; P < .001) and diastolic (-2.92 vs -2.48 mm Hg; P = .01) blood pressure, and levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.67 vs 1.97 mg/dL; P < .001) and triglycerides (-25.56 vs -19.75 mg/dL; P < .001). Reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were greater in DSE than ILI participants (-11.27 vs -12.84 mg/dL; P = .009) owing to greater use of medications to lower lipid levels in the DSE group. At 4 years, ILI participants maintained greater improvements than DSE participants in weight, fitness, hemoglobin A(1c) levels, systolic blood pressure, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS Intensive lifestyle intervention can produce sustained weight loss and improvements in fitness, glycemic control, and CVD risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Whether these differences in risk factors translate to reduction in CVD events will ultimately be addressed by the Look AHEAD trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00017953.
1,125 citations
Authors
Showing all 27508 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
Hongfang Liu | 166 | 2356 | 156290 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Yongsun Kim | 156 | 2588 | 145619 |
Dong-Chul Son | 138 | 1370 | 98686 |
Simon C. Watkins | 135 | 950 | 68358 |
Kenichi Hatakeyama | 134 | 1731 | 102438 |
Conor Henderson | 133 | 1387 | 88725 |
Peter R Hobson | 133 | 1590 | 94257 |
Tulika Bose | 132 | 1285 | 88895 |
Helen F Heath | 132 | 1185 | 89466 |
James Rohlf | 131 | 1215 | 89436 |
Panos A Razis | 130 | 1287 | 90704 |
David B. Allison | 129 | 836 | 69697 |
Eduardo Marbán | 129 | 579 | 49586 |