scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Amsterdam

EducationAmsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
About: University of Amsterdam is a education organization based out in Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 59309 authors who have published 140894 publications receiving 5984137 citations. The organization is also known as: UvA & Universiteit van Amsterdam.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Endovascular thrombectomy is of benefit to most patients with acute ischaemic stroke caused by occlusion of the proximal anterior circulation, irrespective of patient characteristics or geographical location, and will have global implications on structuring systems of care to provide timely treatment.

4,846 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
Abstract: In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at

4,730 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

4,303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Luke Jostins1, Stephan Ripke2, Rinse K. Weersma3, Richard H. Duerr4, Dermot P.B. McGovern5, Ken Y. Hui6, James Lee7, L. Philip Schumm8, Yashoda Sharma6, Carl A. Anderson1, Jonah Essers9, Mitja Mitrovic3, Kaida Ning6, Isabelle Cleynen10, Emilie Theatre11, Sarah L. Spain12, Soumya Raychaudhuri9, Philippe Goyette13, Zhi Wei14, Clara Abraham6, Jean-Paul Achkar15, Tariq Ahmad16, Leila Amininejad17, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan9, Vibeke Andersen18, Jane M. Andrews19, Leonard Baidoo4, Tobias Balschun20, Peter A. Bampton21, Alain Bitton22, Gabrielle Boucher13, Stephan Brand23, Carsten Büning24, Ariella Cohain25, Sven Cichon26, Mauro D'Amato27, Dirk De Jong3, Kathy L Devaney9, Marla Dubinsky5, Cathryn Edwards28, David Ellinghaus20, Lynnette R. Ferguson29, Denis Franchimont17, Karin Fransen3, Richard B. Gearry30, Michel Georges11, Christian Gieger, Jürgen Glas22, Talin Haritunians5, Ailsa Hart31, Christopher J. Hawkey32, Matija Hedl6, Xinli Hu9, Tom H. Karlsen33, Limas Kupčinskas34, Subra Kugathasan35, Anna Latiano36, Debby Laukens37, Ian C. Lawrance38, Charlie W. Lees39, Edouard Louis11, Gillian Mahy40, John C. Mansfield41, Angharad R. Morgan29, Craig Mowat42, William G. Newman43, Orazio Palmieri36, Cyriel Y. Ponsioen44, Uroš Potočnik45, Natalie J. Prescott6, Miguel Regueiro4, Jerome I. Rotter5, Richard K Russell46, Jeremy D. Sanderson47, Miquel Sans, Jack Satsangi39, Stefan Schreiber20, Lisa A. Simms48, Jurgita Sventoraityte34, Stephan R. Targan, Kent D. Taylor5, Mark Tremelling49, Hein W. Verspaget50, Martine De Vos37, Cisca Wijmenga3, David C. Wilson39, Juliane Winkelmann51, Ramnik J. Xavier9, Sebastian Zeissig20, Bin Zhang25, Clarence K. Zhang6, Hongyu Zhao6, Mark S. Silverberg52, Vito Annese, Hakon Hakonarson53, Steven R. Brant54, Graham L. Radford-Smith55, Christopher G. Mathew12, John D. Rioux13, Eric E. Schadt25, Mark J. Daly2, Andre Franke20, Miles Parkes7, Severine Vermeire10, Jeffrey C. Barrett1, Judy H. Cho6 
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute1, Broad Institute2, University of Groningen3, University of Pittsburgh4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, Yale University6, University of Cambridge7, University of Chicago8, Harvard University9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Liège11, King's College London12, Université de Montréal13, New Jersey Institute of Technology14, Cleveland Clinic15, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry16, Université libre de Bruxelles17, Aarhus University18, University of Adelaide19, University of Kiel20, Flinders University21, McGill University22, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich23, Charité24, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai25, University of Bonn26, Karolinska Institutet27, Torbay Hospital28, University of Auckland29, Christchurch Hospital30, Imperial College London31, Queen's University32, University of Oslo33, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences34, Emory University35, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza36, Ghent University37, University of Western Australia38, University of Edinburgh39, Queensland Health40, Newcastle University41, University of Dundee42, University of Manchester43, University of Amsterdam44, University of Maribor45, Royal Hospital for Sick Children46, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust47, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute48, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital49, Leiden University50, Technische Universität München51, University of Toronto52, University of Pennsylvania53, Johns Hopkins University54, University of Queensland55
01 Nov 2012-Nature
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans is undertaken, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls.
Abstract: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), affect over 2.5 million people of European ancestry, with rising prevalence in other populations. Genome-wide association studies and subsequent meta-analyses of these two diseases as separate phenotypes have implicated previously unsuspected mechanisms, such as autophagy, in their pathogenesis and showed that some IBD loci are shared with other inflammatory diseases. Here we expand on the knowledge of relevant pathways by undertaking a meta-analysis of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls. We identify 71 new associations, for a total of 163 IBD loci, that meet genome-wide significance thresholds. Most loci contribute to both phenotypes, and both directional (consistently favouring one allele over the course of human history) and balancing (favouring the retention of both alleles within populations) selection effects are evident. Many IBD loci are also implicated in other immune-mediated disorders, most notably with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. We also observe considerable overlap between susceptibility loci for IBD and mycobacterial infection. Gene co-expression network analysis emphasizes this relationship, with pathways shared between host responses to mycobacteria and those predisposing to IBD.

4,094 citations


Authors

Showing all 59759 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Richard A. Flavell2311328205119
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Stuart H. Orkin186715112182
Kenneth C. Anderson1781138126072
David A. Weitz1781038114182
Dorret I. Boomsma1761507136353
Brenda W.J.H. Penninx1701139119082
Michael Kramer1671713127224
Nicholas J. White1611352104539
Lex M. Bouter158767103034
Wolfgang Wagner1562342123391
Jerome I. Rotter1561071116296
David Cella1561258106402
David Eisenberg156697112460
Naveed Sattar1551326116368
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University College London
210.6K papers, 9.8M citations

94% related

University of Edinburgh
151.6K papers, 6.6M citations

94% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

94% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

94% related

University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023198
2022698
20219,648
20208,534
20197,822
20186,407