Institution
University of Pittsburgh
Education•Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States•
About: University of Pittsburgh is a education organization based out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 87042 authors who have published 201012 publications receiving 9656783 citations. The organization is also known as: Pitt & Western University of Pennsylvania.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Poison control, Cancer, Medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who received docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy had a significantly longer survival than did patients who received cisPlatin and fluoride induction chemotherapyplus cheMoradiotherapy.
Abstract: Background A randomized phase 3 trial of the treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck compared induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF) with cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF), followed by chemoradiotherapy. Methods We randomly assigned 501 patients (all of whom had stage III or IV disease with no distant metastases and tumors considered to be unresectable or were candidates for organ preservation) to receive either TPF or PF induction chemotherapy, followed by chemoradiotherapy with weekly carboplatin therapy and radiotherapy for 5 days per week. The primary end point was overall survival. Results With a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (≥3 years for 69% of patients), significantly more patients survived in the TPF group than in the PF group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; P=0.006). Estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 62% in the TPF group and 48% in the PF group; the median overall survival was 71 months and 30 months, respectively (P=0.006). There...
1,509 citations
••
Cooper University Hospital1, Rhode Island Hospital2, University of Birmingham3, Stony Brook University4, McMaster University5, University of Jena6, University of Pittsburgh7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University Hospital of Lausanne9, University of Minnesota10, St. Michael's Hospital11, University of Turin12, University of Hertfordshire13, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine14, Harvard University15, NorthShore University HealthSystem16, Houston Methodist Hospital17
TL;DR: An update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “SurvivingSepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” published in 2004 is provided.
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” published in 2004.Design:Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, s
1,507 citations
••
TL;DR: IL-6 and D-dimer were strongly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and Therapies that reduce the inflammatory response to HIV and decrease IL- 6 and D -dimer levels may warrant investigation.
Abstract: Background In the Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy trial, all-cause mortality was higher for participants randomized to intermittent, CD4-guided antiretroviral treatment (ART) (drug conservation [DC]) than continuous ART (viral suppression [VS]). We hypothesized that increased HIV-RNA levels following ART interruption induced activation of tissue factor pathways, thrombosis, and fibrinolysis.
1,500 citations
••
TL;DR: The goal of this paper is to provide initial guidance for the scientific community working with adipose-derived cells and to facilitate development of international standards based on reproducible parameters.
1,495 citations
••
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of California, Los Angeles2, University of California, San Diego3, Albany Medical College4, University of Pittsburgh5, University of Nebraska Omaha6, Oregon Health & Science University7, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center8, University of Toronto9, University of Paris10, University of Michigan11, Mayo Clinic12, University of Minnesota13
TL;DR: The 2012 ACR RA recommendations were developed by two expert panels: a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis.
Abstract: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) most recently published recommendations for use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 2008 (1). These recommendations covered indications for use, monitoring of side-effects, assessment of the clinical response to DMARDs and biologics, screening for tuberculosis (TB), and assessment of the roles of cost and patient preference in decision-making for biologic agents (1). Recognizing the rapidly evolving knowledge in RA management and the accumulation of new evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of existing and newer therapies, the ACR commissioned an update of the 2008 recommendations in select topic areas.
The 2012 revision updates the 2008 ACR recommendations in the following areas: (1) indications for DMARDs and biologics; (2) switching between DMARD and biologic therapies; (3) use of biologics in high-risk patients (those with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, and malignancy); (4) screening for TB in patients starting or currently receiving biologics; and (5) vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologics (Table 1).
Table 1
Overview Comparison of Topics and Medications Included in the 2008 and 2012 ACR RA Recommendations
METHODS
We utilized the same methodology as described in detail in the 2008 guidelines (1) to maintain consistency and to allow cumulative evidence to inform this 2012 recommendation update. These recommendations were developed by two expert panels: (1) a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel (CEP) of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis and creation of “clinical scenarios”; and (2) a Task Force Panel (TFP) of 11 internationally-recognized expert clinicians, patient representatives and methodologists with expertise in RA treatment, evidence-based medicine and patient preferences who were tasked with rating the scenarios created using an ordinal scale specified in the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness method (2–4). This method solicited formal input from a multi-disciplinary TFP panel to make recommendations informed by the evidence. The methods used to develop the updated ACR recommendations are described briefly below.
Systematic Literature Review – Sources, Databases and Domains
Literature searches for both DMARDs and biologics relied predominantly on PubMed searches) with medical subject headings (MeSH) and relevant keywords similar to those used for the 2008 ACR RA recommendations (see Appendices 1 and 2). We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), and case-control studies, with no restrictions on sample size. More details about inclusion criteria are listed below and in Appendix 3.
The 2008 recommendations were based on a literature search that ended on February 14, 2007. The literature search end date for the 2012 Update was February 26, 2010 for the efficacy and safety studies and September 22, 2010 for additional qualitative reviews related to TB screening, immunization and hepatitis (similar to the 2008 methodology). Studies published subsequent to that date were not included.
For biologics, we also reviewed the Cochrane systematic reviews and overviews (published and in press) in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify additional studies (5–8) and further supplemented by hand-checking the bibliographies of all included articles. Finally, the CEP and TFP confirmed that relevant literature was included for evidence synthesis. Unless they were identified by the literature search and met the article inclusion criteria (see Appendix 3), we did not review any unpublished data from product manufacturers, investigators, or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System.
We searched the literature for the eight DMARDs and nine biologics most commonly used for the treatment of RA. Literature was searched for eight DMARDS including azathioprine, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, organic gold compounds and sulfasalazine. As in 2008, azathioprine, cyclosporine and gold were not included in the recommendations based on infrequent use and lack of new data (Table 1). Literature was searched for nine biologics including abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab; anakinra was not included in the recommendations due to infrequent use and lack of new data. Details of the bibliographic search strategy are listed in Appendix 1.
1,493 citations
Authors
Showing all 87737 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
JoAnn E. Manson | 270 | 1819 | 258509 |
Graham A. Colditz | 261 | 1542 | 256034 |
Yi Chen | 217 | 4342 | 293080 |
David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
David Miller | 203 | 2573 | 204840 |
Rakesh K. Jain | 200 | 1467 | 177727 |
Lewis C. Cantley | 196 | 748 | 169037 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Terrie E. Moffitt | 182 | 594 | 150609 |
Dennis S. Charney | 179 | 802 | 122408 |
Ronald C. Petersen | 178 | 1091 | 153067 |
David L. Kaplan | 177 | 1944 | 146082 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
Richard K. Wilson | 173 | 463 | 260000 |
Deborah J. Cook | 173 | 907 | 148928 |